↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability of high‐resolution anoscopy for anal cancer screening in HIV‐infected patients

Overview of attention for article published in HIV Medicine, August 2018
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Acceptability of high‐resolution anoscopy for anal cancer screening in HIV‐infected patients
Published in
HIV Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1111/hiv.12663
Pubmed ID
Authors

JO Lam, GM Barnell, M Merchant, CG Ellis, MJ Silverberg

Abstract

HIV-infected individuals are at increased risk of anal cancer. Screening for anal cancer precursors using high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) may be clinically beneficial. In this study, we examined patient tolerability of this procedure. The acceptability of HRA was evaluated among HIV-infected patients who completed a first-time HRA between July 2008 and December 2013 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. We reviewed electronic medical records to identify lack of HRA acceptability, which was defined as receipt of HRA with sedation, dispensation of opioid analgaesia, and/or an urgent care visit following HRA, and to evaluate factors associated with patients not returning for a recommended repeat HRA (proxy for HRA acceptability). HRA acceptability was also assessed via a survey mailed to patients who completed HRA between January 2014 and August 2014. Logistic regression was used to model lack of acceptability of initial HRA and likelihood of not returning for a repeat HRA. Of 1857 HIV-infected patients, 94 were prescribed opioids and one had an urgent care visit. Lack of HRA acceptability was more likely in patients with pre-existing anal conditions [e.g. warts or fissure; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-6.7], those who had ever smoked (aOR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.5) and women (aOR 5.3; 95% CI 1.6-17.5). Fifty per cent of patients returned for a repeat HRA, with younger patients less likely to return (per 10-year age interval, aOR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7-0.9). Of 48 survey respondents, 91.7% reported acceptable pain levels and all reported willingness to return for a repeat HRA. HRA was generally well tolerated and may be an acceptable screening approach for patients at high risk of anal cancer.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 18 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 22 48%
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 13 December 2018.
All research outputs
#15,363,335
of 24,453,338 outputs
Outputs from HIV Medicine
#820
of 1,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,416
of 334,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HIV Medicine
#14
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,453,338 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 334,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.