↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the vaginal microbiota diversity of women with and without human papillomavirus infection: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2013
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 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
Comparison of the vaginal microbiota diversity of women with and without human papillomavirus infection: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-271
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weijiao Gao, Jinlong Weng, Yunong Gao, Xiaochi Chen

Abstract

The female genital tract is an important bacterial habitat of the human body, and vaginal microbiota plays a crucial role in vaginal health. The alteration of vaginal microbiota affects millions of women annually, and is associated with numerous adverse health outcomes, including human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. However, previous studies have primarily focused on the association between bacterial vaginosis and HPV infection. Little is known about the composition of vaginal microbial communities involved in HPV acquisition. The present study was performed to investigate whether HPV infection was associated with the diversity and composition of vaginal microbiota.

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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 213 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 17%
Student > Master 31 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 25 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 37 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 15 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 48 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#4,156,759
of 25,513,063 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,407
of 8,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,075
of 210,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#20
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,513,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 210,235 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.