↓ Skip to main content

Treatment challenges for urogenital and anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Treatment challenges for urogenital and anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1030-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabian Yuh Shiong Kong, Jane Simone Hocking

Abstract

While true antimicrobial resistance to Chlamydia trachomatis is a rare occurrence, repeat chlamydia infections continue to be reported following treatment with a single 1 g dose of azithromycin or week long doxycycline - with considerable more concern about azithromycin treatment failure. While most repeat positive cases are likely to be reinfections, emerging evidence indicates treatment failure may play a role. Current data suggests that there may are differences in the efficacy of the drugs between rectal and non-rectal sites of infection and factors such as immune response, drug pharmacokinetics, organism load, auto-inoculation from rectum to cervix in women and the genital microbiome may play a role in treatment failure. Other possible reasons for repeat infection include the low discriminatory power of NAAT tests to differentiate between viable and nonviable organisms and failure to detect LGV infection. This review will present the current evidence regarding the management challenges for urogenital and anorectal chlamydia infections and provide some suggestions for where future research efforts are needed to address important knowledge gaps in this area and provide stronger evidence for the development of robust treatment guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 114 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 09 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,065,177
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#572
of 7,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,188
of 263,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#21
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 263,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.