The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 188 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Zika Virus: Medical Countermeasure Development Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004530 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert W. Malone, Jane Homan, Michael V. Callahan, Jill Glasspool-Malone, Lambodhar Damodaran, Adriano De Bernardi Schneider, Rebecca Zimler, James Talton, Ronald R. Cobb, Ivan Ruzic, Julie Smith-Gagen, Daniel Janies, James Wilson, Zika Response Working Group |
| Abstract |
Reports of high rates of primary microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia and Brazil have raised concerns that the virus circulating in these regions is a rapidly developing neuropathic, teratogenic, emerging infectious public health threat. There are no licensed medical countermeasures (vaccines, therapies or preventive drugs) available for Zika virus infection and disease. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) predicts that Zika virus will continue to spread and eventually reach all countries and territories in the Americas with endemic Aedes mosquitoes. This paper reviews the status of the Zika virus outbreak, including medical countermeasure options, with a focus on how the epidemiology, insect vectors, neuropathology, virology and immunology inform options and strategies available for medical countermeasure development and deployment. Multiple information sources were employed to support the review. These included publically available literature, patents, official communications, English and Lusophone lay press. Online surveys were distributed to physicians in the US, Mexico and Argentina and responses analyzed. Computational epitope analysis as well as infectious disease outbreak modeling and forecasting were implemented. Field observations in Brazil were compiled and interviews conducted with public health officials. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 39 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 5% |
| Mexico | 3 | 2% |
| Greece | 2 | 1% |
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| France | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Unknown | 111 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 173 | 92% |
| Scientists | 8 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 526 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 5 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 509 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 111 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 97 | 18% |
| Researcher | 66 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 32 | 6% |
| Other | 105 | 20% |
| Unknown | 67 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 87 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 65 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 26 | 5% |
| Other | 118 | 22% |
| Unknown | 90 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 166. 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 01 October 2024.
All research outputs
#265,094
of 26,795,820 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#119
of 9,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,393
of 314,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#7
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,795,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 314,961 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.