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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A second generation cervico-vaginal lavage device shows similar performance as its preceding version with respect to DNA yield and HPV DNA results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Women's Health, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6874-13-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Viola MJ Verhoef, Maaike G Dijkstra, Remko P Bosgraaf, Albertus T Hesselink, Willem JG Melchers, Ruud LM Bekkers, Johannes Berkhof, Folkert J van Kemenade |
| Abstract |
Attendance rates of cervical screening programs can be increased by offering HPV self-sampling to non-attendees. Acceptability, DNA yield, lavage volumes and choice of hrHPV test can influence effectiveness of the self-sampling procedures and could therefore play a role in recruiting non-attendees. To increase user-friendliness, a frequently used lavage sampler was modified. In this study, we compared this second generation lavage device with the first generation device within similar birth cohorts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 20% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 May 2013.
All research outputs
#18,338,033
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,476
of 1,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,722
of 192,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 192,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.