↓ Skip to main content

Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-93
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darlene Taylor, Carole Lunny, Tom Wong, Mark Gilbert, Neville Li, Richard Lester, Mel Krajden, Linda Hoang, Gina Ogilvie

Abstract

Three meta-analyses and one systematic review have been conducted on the question of whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens for STI screening. However, these reviews predate 2007 and did not analyze rectal or pharyngeal collection sites. Currently, there is no consensus on which sampling method is the most effective for the diagnosis of genital chlamydia (CT), gonorrhea (GC) or human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Our meta-analysis aims to be comprehensive in that it will examine the evidence of whether self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal specimens provide as accurate a clinical diagnosis as clinician-collected samples (reference standard).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 47%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 November 2013.
All research outputs
#4,381,389
of 6,229,233 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#398
of 497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,187
of 113,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,229,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 113,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.