| 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
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 5 | 8% |
| Spain | 4 | 6% |
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Argentina | 3 | 5% |
| Colombia | 2 | 3% |
| Panama | 2 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 58 | 88% |
| Scientists | 7 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 580 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 | 564 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 138 | 24% |
| Researcher | 69 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 6% |
| Other | 107 | 18% |
| Unknown | 121 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 186 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 38 | 7% |
| Psychology | 24 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 3% |
| Other | 109 | 19% |
| Unknown | 164 | 28% |
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
#373,222
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#638
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#372
of 134,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 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 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 134,101 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 37 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.