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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Accuracy and User-Acceptability of HIV Self-Testing Using an Oral Fluid-Based HIV Rapid Test
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0045168 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oon Tek Ng, Angela L. Chow, Vernon J. Lee, Mark I. C. Chen, Mar Kyaw Win, Hiok Hee Tan, Arlene Chua, Yee Sin Leo |
| Abstract |
The United States FDA approved an over-the-counter HIV self-test, to facilitate increased HIV testing and earlier linkage to care. We assessed the accuracy of self-testing by untrained participants compared to healthcare worker (HCW) testing, participants' ability to interpret sample results and user-acceptability of self-tests in Singapore. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| South Africa | 1 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 197 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 38 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 36 | 18% |
| Unknown | 42 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 53 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 09 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,718,763
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#21,875
of 202,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,101
of 172,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#358
of 4,322 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 172,075 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,322 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 91% of its contemporaries.