↓ Skip to main content

Is it time to switch to doxycycline from azithromycin for treating genital chlamydial infections in women? Modelling the impact of autoinoculation from the gastrointestinal tract to the genital tract

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Is it time to switch to doxycycline from azithromycin for treating genital chlamydial infections in women? Modelling the impact of autoinoculation from the gastrointestinal tract to the genital tract
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0939-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew P Craig, Fabian YS Kong, Laxmi Yeruva, Jane S Hocking, Roger G Rank, David P Wilson, Basil Donovan

Abstract

Single-dose azithromycin is recommended over multi-dose doxycycline as treatment for chlamydial infection. However, even with imperfect adherence, doxycycline is more effective in treating genital and rectal infection. Recently, it has been suggested that autoinoculation from the rectum to the genitals may be a source of persistent chlamydial infection in women. We estimated the impact autoinoculation may have on azithromycin and doxycycline effectiveness. We estimate treatment effectiveness using a simple mathematical model, incorporating data on azithromycin and doxycycline efficacy from recent meta-analyses, and data on prevalence of rectal infection in women with genital chlamydial infection. When the possibility of autoinoculation is taken into account, we calculate that doxycycline effectiveness may be 97% compared to just 82% for azithromycin. Consideration should be given to re-evaluating azithromycin as the standard treatment for genital chlamydia in women.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Unspecified 5 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Other 2 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#2,659,578
of 5,038,209 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,476
of 2,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,542
of 156,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#43
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,038,209 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,671 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 156,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.