↓ Skip to main content

What is needed to guide testing for anorectal and pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in women and men? Evidence and opinion

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
What is needed to guide testing for anorectal and pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in women and men? Evidence and opinion
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1280-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole H. T. M. Dukers-Muijrers, Julius Schachter, Genevieve A. F. S. van Liere, Petra F. G. Wolffs, Christian J. P. A. Hoebe

Abstract

Anorectal and pharyngeal infections with Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrheae (NG) are commonly observed in men who have sex with men (MSM). There is increasing evidence that such infections at extra-genital sites are also common in women. In both sexes, these infections are largely overlooked as they are not routinely tested for in regular care. Testing based on sexual behavior or symptoms would only detect half of these extra-genital infections. This paper elucidates the differences and similarities between women and MSM, regarding the epidemiology of extra-genital CT and NG. It discusses the clinical and public health impact of untested extra-genital infections, how this may impact management strategies, and thereby identifies key research areas. Extra-genital CT is as common in women as it is in MSM; NG in women is as common at their extra-genital sites as it is at their genital sites. The substantial numbers of extra-genital CT and NG being missed in women and MSM indicate a need to test and treat more patients and perhaps different choices in treatment and partner management strategies. Doing so will likely contribute to reduced morbidity and transmission in both sexes. However, in our opinion, it is clear that there are several knowledge gaps in understanding the clinical and public health impact of extra-genital CT and NG. Key research areas that need to be addressed concern associated morbidity (anorectal and reproductive morbidity due to extra-genital infections), 'the best' management strategies, including testing and treatment for extra-genital CT, extra-genital treatment resistance, transmission probabilities between partners and between anatomic sites in a woman, and impact on transmission of other infections. Data are also lacking on cost-effectiveness of pharyngeal testing, and of NG testing and anorectal CT testing in women. Gaps in the management of extra-genital CT and NG may also apply for other STIs, such Mycoplasma genitalium. Current management strategies, including testing, to address extra-genital CT and NG in both sexes are suboptimal. Comparative data on several identified key themes in women and MSM are lacking and urgently needed to guide better management of extra-genital infections.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Other 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 8%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,782,976
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#469
of 7,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,691
of 388,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#7
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 388,046 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.