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 |
Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-93 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Darlene Taylor, Carole Lunny, Tom Wong, Mark Gilbert, Neville Li, Richard Lester, Mel Krajden, Linda Hoang, Gina Ogilvie |
| Abstract |
Three meta-analyses and one systematic review have been conducted on the question of whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens for STI screening. However, these reviews predate 2007 and did not analyze rectal or pharyngeal collection sites. Currently, there is no consensus on which sampling method is the most effective for the diagnosis of genital chlamydia (CT), gonorrhea (GC) or human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Our meta-analysis aims to be comprehensive in that it will examine the evidence of whether self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal specimens provide as accurate a clinical diagnosis as clinician-collected samples (reference standard). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
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 07 November 2013.
All research outputs
#17,700,887
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,699
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,953
of 209,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 209,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.