↓ Skip to main content

Consolidating emerging evidence surrounding HIVST and HIVSS: a rapid systematic mapping protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Consolidating emerging evidence surrounding HIVST and HIVSS: a rapid systematic mapping protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0452-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Charles Witzel, Peter Weatherburn, Fiona M. Burns, Cheryl C. Johnson, Carmen Figueroa, Alison J. Rodger

Abstract

HIV self-testing (HIVST) is becoming popular with policy makers and commissioners globally, with a key aim of expanding access through reducing barriers to testing for individuals at risk of HIV infection. HIV self-sampling (HIVSS) was available previously to self-testing but was confined mainly to the USA and the UK. It remains to be seen whether the momentum behind HIVST will also energise efforts to expand HIVSS. Recent years have seen a rapid growth in the type of evidence related to these interventions as well as several systematic reviews. The vast majority of this evidence relates to acceptability as well as values and preferences, although new types of evidence are emerging. This systematic map aims to consolidate all emerging evidence related to HIVST and HIVSS to respond to this rapidly changing area. We will systematically search databases and the abstracts of five conferences from 2006 to the present date, with monthly-automated database searches. Searches will combine key terms relating to HIV (e.g. HIV, AIDS, human immune-deficiency syndrome) with terms related to self-testing (e.g. home-test, self-test, mail-test, home dried blood spot test). Abstracts will be reviewed against inclusion criteria in duplicate. Data will be manually extracted through a standard form and then entered to an open access relational map (HIVST.org). When new and sufficient evidence emerges which addresses existing knowledge gaps, we will complete a review on a relevant topic. This innovative approach will allow rapid cataloguing, documenting and dissemination of new evidence and key findings as they emerge into the public domain. This protocol has not been registered with PROSPERO as they do not register systematic maps.

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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 29%
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,542,806
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,788
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,479
of 309,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#50
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 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 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 309,560 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 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.