↓ Skip to main content

Development of a Pediatric Ebola Predictive Score, Sierra Leone1

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, February 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Development of a Pediatric Ebola Predictive Score, Sierra Leone1
Published in
Emerging Infectious Diseases, February 2018
DOI 10.3201/eid2402.171018
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Fitzgerald et al., Fitzgerald, F, Wing, K, Naveed, A, Gbessay, M, Ross, JCG, Checchi, F, Youkee, D, Jalloh, MB, Baion, DE, Mustapha, A, Jah, H, Lako, S, Oza, S, Boufkhed, S, Feury, R, Bielicki, J, Williamson, E, Gibb, DM, Klein, N, Sahr, F, Yeung, S

Abstract

We compared children who were positive for Ebola virus disease (EVD) with those who were negative to derive a pediatric EVD predictor (PEP) score. We collected data on all children <13 years of age admitted to 11 Ebola holding units in Sierra Leone during August 2014-March 2015 and performed multivariable logistic regression. Among 1,054 children, 309 (29%) were EVD positive and 697 (66%) EVD negative, with 48 (5%) missing. Contact history, conjunctivitis, and age were the strongest positive predictors for EVD. The PEP score had an area under receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.80. A PEP score of 7/10 was 92% specific and 44% sensitive; 3/10 was 30% specific, 94% sensitive. The PEP score could correctly classify 79%-90% of children and could be used to facilitate triage into risk categories, depending on the sensitivity or specificity required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 33%
Other 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Unspecified 4 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 20%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,758,603
of 12,959,478 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,826
of 6,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,161
of 381,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#59
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,959,478 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 381,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 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 60% of its contemporaries.