↓ Skip to main content
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Post Hoc Analysis of the PATRICIA Randomized Trial of the Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Type 16 (HPV-16)/HPV-18 AS04-Adjuvanted Vaccine against Incident and Persistent Infection with Nonvaccine Oncogenic HPV Types Using an Alternative Multiplex Type-Specific PCR Assay for HPV DNA
Published in
Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (formerly CDLI), December 2014
DOI 10.1128/cvi.00457-14
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The efficacy of the human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16)/HPV-18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infections with HPV in the Papilloma Trial against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA) was evaluated using a combination of the broad-spectrum L1-based SPF10 PCR-DNA enzyme immunoassay (DEIA)/line probe assay (LiPA25) system with type-specific PCRs for HPV-16 and -18. Broad-spectrum PCR assays may underestimate the presence of HPV genotypes present at relatively low concentrations in multiple infections, due to competition between genotypes. Therefore, samples were retrospectively reanalyzed using a testing algorithm incorporating the SPF10 PCR-DEIA/LiPA25 plus a novel E6-based multiplex type-specific PCR and reverse hybridization assay (MPTS12 RHA), which permits detection of a panel of nine oncogenic HPV genotypes (types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58, and 59). For the vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, there was no major impact on estimates of vaccine efficacy (VE) for incident or 6-month or 12-month persistent infections when the MPTS12 RHA was included in the testing algorithm versus estimates with the protocol-specified algorithm. However, the alternative testing algorithm showed greater sensitivity than the protocol-specified algorithm for detection of some nonvaccine oncogenic HPV types. More cases were gained in the control group than in the vaccine group, leading to higher point estimates of VE for 6-month and 12-month persistent infections for the nonvaccine oncogenic types included in the MPTS12 RHA assay (types 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58, and 59). This post hoc analysis indicates that the per-protocol testing algorithm used in PATRICIA underestimated the VE against some nonvaccine oncogenic HPV types and that the choice of the HPV DNA testing methodology is important for the evaluation of VE in clinical trials. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00122681.).

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 107 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Professor 8 7%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 48 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 49 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 October 2023.
All research outputs
#4,287,151
of 34,559,526 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (formerly CDLI)
#320
of 1,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,038
of 411,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (formerly CDLI)
#6
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,559,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 411,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.