↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rapid diagnostic tests versus clinical diagnosis for managing people with fever in malaria endemic settings

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
351 Mendeley
Title
Rapid diagnostic tests versus clinical diagnosis for managing people with fever in malaria endemic settings
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008998.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Odaga, David Sinclair, Joseph A Lokong, Sarah Donegan, Heidi Hopkins, Paul Garner

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nigeria 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 337 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 21%
Researcher 46 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 10%
Student > Postgraduate 30 9%
Student > Bachelor 29 8%
Other 79 23%
Unknown 58 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 138 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 7%
Social Sciences 17 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 3%
Other 52 15%
Unknown 74 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,262,330
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,916
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,518
of 226,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.