| Title |
Cervical Cancer Screening for Patients on the Female-to-Male Spectrum: a Narrative Review and Guide for Clinicians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-015-3462-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Potter, Sarah M. Peitzmeier, Ida Bernstein, Sari L. Reisner, Natalie M. Alizaga, Madina Agénor, Dana J. Pardee |
| Abstract |
Guidelines for cervical cancer screening have evolved rapidly over the last several years, with a trend toward longer intervals between screenings and an increasing number of screening options, such as Pap/HPV co-testing and HPV testing as a primary screening. However, gynecological recommendations often do not include clinical considerations specific to patients on the female-to-male (FTM) spectrum. Both patients and providers may not accurately assess risk for HPV and other sexually transmitted infections, understand barriers to care, or be aware of recommendations for cervical cancer screening and other appropriate sexual and reproductive health services for this patient population. We review the evidence and provide guidance on minimizing emotional discomfort before, during, and after a pelvic exam, minimizing physical discomfort during the exam, and making adaptations to account for testosterone-induced anatomical changes common among FTM patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 | 10 | 36% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Central African Republic | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 186 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 12% |
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 21% |
| Unknown | 59 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 10% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 69 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 18 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,274,006
of 25,387,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,025
of 8,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,433
of 272,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#12
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,189 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 272,781 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 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 90% of its contemporaries.