↓ Skip to main content

Comparing HIV prevalence estimates from prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission programme and the antenatal HIV surveillance in Addis Ababa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing HIV prevalence estimates from prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission programme and the antenatal HIV surveillance in Addis Ababa
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alemnesh H Mirkuzie, Mitike Molla Sisay, Sven Gudmund Hinderaker, Karen Marie Moland, Odd Mørkve

Abstract

In the absence of reliable data, antenatal HIV surveillance has been used to monitor the HIV epidemic since the late 1980s. Currently, routine data from Prevention of Mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT) programmes are increasingly available. Evaluating whether the PMTCT programme reports provide comparable HIV prevalence estimates with the antenatal surveillance reports is important. In this study, we compared HIV prevalence estimates from routine PMTCT programme and antenatal surveillance in Addis Ababa with the aim to come up with evidence based recommendation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 25%
Researcher 13 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 March 2013.
All research outputs
#14,741,936
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,818
of 14,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,242
of 280,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#216
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.