Title |
HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism
|
---|---|
Published in |
Infectious Agents and Cancer, February 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1750-9378-8-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lucija Tomljenovic, Judy Wilyman, Eva Vanamee, Toni Bark, Christopher A Shaw |
Abstract |
The rationale behind current worldwide human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programs starts from two basic premises, 1) that HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancers and save lives and, 2) have no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, efforts should be made to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated in order to decrease the burden of cervical cancer. Careful analysis of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure data shows however that both of these premises are at odds with factual evidence and are largely derived from significant misinterpretation of available data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 143 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 States | 24 | 17% |
United Kingdom | 7 | 5% |
Spain | 4 | 3% |
India | 4 | 3% |
Saudi Arabia | 4 | 3% |
Australia | 3 | 2% |
Canada | 3 | 2% |
Colombia | 3 | 2% |
Slovenia | 2 | 1% |
Other | 11 | 8% |
Unknown | 78 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 124 | 87% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 7% |
Scientists | 9 | 6% |
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 % |
---|---|---|
Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
United States | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 45 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 12 | 26% |
Other | 8 | 17% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
Other | 7 | 15% |
Unknown | 7 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 47% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 17% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 123. 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 22 March 2024.
All research outputs
#348,527
of 25,848,962 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#9
of 627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,460
of 293,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,848,962 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 627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 293,583 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.