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 |
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. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
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
#20,449,496
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6,520
of 7,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,335
of 324,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#106
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 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 7,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. 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 324,848 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 131 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.