↓ Skip to main content

Human papillomavirus genotypes in cervical cancer and vaccination challenges in Zimbabwe

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Agents and Cancer, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Human papillomavirus genotypes in cervical cancer and vaccination challenges in Zimbabwe
Published in
Infectious Agents and Cancer, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1750-9378-9-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nyasha Chin'ombe, Natasha L Sebata, Vurayai Ruhanya, Hilda T Matarira

Abstract

Cervical cancer is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in women in Zimbabwe. This is mainly due to the high prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in the population. So far, few studies have been done that showed the presence of high-risk genital HPV genotypes such as 16, 18, 31, 33, 52, 58 and 70 in Zimbabwean women with cervical cancer. The prevalence of HPV DNA in women with cervical cancer has been shown to range from 63% to 98%. The high-risk HPV 16, 18, 31, 33 and 58 were the most common genotypes in all the studies. The introduction of the new HPV vaccines, HPV2 and HPV4, which protect against HPV genotypes 16 and 18 into Zimbabwe is likely to go a long way in reducing deaths due to cervical cancer. However, there are few challenges to the introduction of the vaccines. The target population for HPV vaccination is at the moment not well-defined. The other challenge is that the current HPV vaccines confer only type-specific (HPV 16 and 18) immunity leaving a small proportion of Zimbabwean women unprotected against other high-risk HPV genotypes such as 31, 33 and 58. Future HPV vaccines such as the nanovalent vaccine will be more useful to Zimbabwe as they will protect women against more genotypes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 25%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 11 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 May 2014.
All research outputs
#14,195,754
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#200
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,039
of 226,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 226,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.