↓ Skip to main content

Strong associations between national prevalence of various STIs suggests sexual network connectivity is a common underpinning risk factor

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Strong associations between national prevalence of various STIs suggests sexual network connectivity is a common underpinning risk factor
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2794-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Kenyon

Abstract

If national peak Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevalence is positively associated with the prevalence of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) from before or early on in the HIV epidemics this would suggest common underlying drivers. Pearson's correlations were calculated between the prevalence of seven STIs at a country-level: chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis, syphilis, bacterial vaginosis, herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2) and HIV. The prevalence of all the STIs was highest in the sub-Saharan African region excluding chlamydia. The prevalence of all seven STIs were positively correlated excluding chlamydia. The correlations were strongest for HIV-HSV-2 (r = 0.85, P < 0.0001) and HSV-2-trichomoniasis (r = 0.82, P < 0.0001). Our results of a generally positive association between the prevalences of a range of STIs suggests that higher prevalences were driven by common underlying determinants. We review different types of evidence which suggest that differential sexual connectivity is a plausible common determinant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 10 19%

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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#10,643,827
of 12,002,078 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,863
of 4,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,709
of 284,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#240
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,002,078 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,443 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 284,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 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.