| Title |
Airborne or droplet precautions for health workers treating COVID-19?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Infectious Diseases, May 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1093/infdis/jiaa189 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Prateek Bahl, Con Doolan, Charitha de Silva, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, Lydia Bourouiba, C Raina MacIntyre |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 821 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 111 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 63 | 8% |
| Canada | 58 | 7% |
| Australia | 51 | 6% |
| France | 11 | 1% |
| Spain | 11 | 1% |
| India | 7 | <1% |
| Germany | 5 | <1% |
| Argentina | 5 | <1% |
| Other | 74 | 9% |
| Unknown | 425 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 646 | 79% |
| Scientists | 105 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 50 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 20 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 678 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 678 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 76 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 71 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 63 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 5% |
| Other | 153 | 23% |
| Unknown | 231 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 136 | 20% |
| Engineering | 73 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 3% |
| Other | 129 | 19% |
| Unknown | 258 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1131. 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 18 April 2024.
All research outputs
#13,401
of 25,782,229 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#18
of 14,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#476
of 448,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#4
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,229 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 14,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 448,816 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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.