| Title |
Rationale and design of REACT: a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of home-collection to increase chlamydia retesting and detect repeat positive tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-14-223 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirsty S Smith, Jane S Hocking, Marcus Chen, Christopher K Fairley, Anna McNulty, Phillip Read, Catriona S Bradshaw, Sepehr N Tabrizi, Handan Wand, Marion Saville, William Rawlinson, Suzanne M Garland, Basil Donovan, John M Kaldor, Rebecca Guy |
| Abstract |
Repeat infection with Chlamydia trachomatis is common and increases the risk of sequelae in women and HIV seroconversion in men who have sex with men (MSM). Despite guidelines recommending chlamydia retesting three months after treatment, retesting rates are low. We are conducting the first randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of home collection combined with short message service (SMS) reminders on chlamydia retesting and reinfection rates in three risk groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 33 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#14,780,011
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,061
of 7,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,971
of 227,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#89
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 227,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.