↓ Skip to main content

Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing Circumcision Self-Report and Physical Examination Findings in Lesotho

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2011
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing Circumcision Self-Report and Physical Examination Findings in Lesotho
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0027561
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Goldzier Thomas, Bonnie Robin Tran, Marcus Cranston, Malerato Cecilia Brown, Rajiv Kumar, Matsotetsi Tlelai

Abstract

Overwhelming evidence, including three clinical trials, shows that male circumcision (MC) reduces the risk of HIV infection among men. However, data from recent Lesotho Demographic and Health Surveys do not demonstrate MC to be protective against HIV. These contradictory findings could partially be due to inaccurate self-reported MC status used to estimate MC prevalence. This study describes MC characteristics among men applying for Lesotho Defence Force recruitment and seeks to assess MC self-reported accuracy through comparison with physical-examination-based data.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Indonesia 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 32%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 37%
Social Sciences 10 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 8 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,140,666
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#15,277
of 193,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,620
of 240,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#159
of 2,793 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 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 193,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 240,140 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,793 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 94% of its contemporaries.