| Title |
Usefulness and applicability of the revised dengue case classification by disease: multi-centre study in 18 countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-11-106 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Judit Barniol, Roger Gaczkowski, Eliana Vega Barbato, Rivaldo V da Cunha, Doris Salgado, Eric Martínez, Carmita Soria Segarra, Ernesto B Pleites Sandoval, Ajay Mishra, Ida Safitri Laksono, Lucy CS Lum, José G Martínez, Andrea Núnez, Angel Balsameda, Ivan Allende, Gladys Ramírez, Efren Dimaano, Kay Thomacheck, Naeema A Akbar, Eng E Ooi, Elci Villegas, Tran T Hien, Jeremy Farrar, Olaf Horstick, Axel Kroeger, Thomas Jaenisch |
| Abstract |
In view of the long term discussion on the appropriateness of the dengue classification into dengue fever (DF), dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) and dengue shock syndrome (DSS), the World Health Organization (WHO) has outlined in its new global dengue guidelines a revised classification into levels of severity: dengue fever with an intermediary group of "dengue fever with warning sings", and severe dengue. The objective of this paper was to compare the two classification systems regarding applicability in clinical practice and surveillance, as well as user-friendliness and acceptance by health staff. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 50% |
| Philippines | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| French Polynesia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 250 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 44 | 17% |
| Researcher | 37 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 58 | 22% |
| Unknown | 44 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 99 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 14 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 42 | 16% |
| Unknown | 50 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,506,812
of 23,926,844 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,001
of 7,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,944
of 111,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#16
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,926,844 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 111,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 65% of its contemporaries.