↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
66 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
10 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
586 Mendeley
Title
Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003255
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan C Weller, Karen Davis-Beaty

Abstract

The amount of protection that condoms provide for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections is unknown. Cohort studies of sexually active HIV serodiscordant couples with follow-up of the seronegative partner, provide a situation in which a seronegative partner has known exposure to the disease and disease incidence can be estimated. When some individuals use condoms and some do not, namely some individuals use condoms 100% of the time and some never use (0%) condoms, condom effectiveness can be estimated by comparing the two incidence rates. Condom effectiveness is the proportionate reduction in disease due to the use of condoms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 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 586 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
El Salvador 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 570 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 138 24%
Researcher 69 12%
Student > Bachelor 58 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 9%
Student > Postgraduate 35 6%
Other 108 18%
Unknown 125 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 186 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 7%
Social Sciences 38 6%
Psychology 24 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 3%
Other 111 19%
Unknown 168 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 114. 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 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#379,463
of 25,990,981 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#615
of 13,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#373
of 134,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,990,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 134,336 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 97% of its contemporaries.