IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0279048.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sexually transmitted infections among key populations in India: A protocol for systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Mihir Bhatta
  • Agniva Majumdar
  • Utsha Ghosh
  • Piyali Ghosh
  • Papiya Banerji
  • Santhakumar Aridoss
  • Abhisek Royal
  • Subrata Biswas
  • Bhumika Tumkur Venkatesh
  • Rajatsuvra Adhikary
  • Shanta Dutta

Abstract

Background: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are one of the leading causes of health, and economic burdens in the developing world, leading to considerable morbidity, mortality, and stigma. The incidence and prevalence of the four curable STIs viz. syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis vary remarkably across different geographical locations. In India, the prevalence of four curable STI among general populations is in between 0 to 3.9 percent. However, it is assumed that STI prevalence is much higher among subpopulations practicing high-risk behaviour. Like men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender (TG), injecting drug users (IDU), and female sex workers (FSW). Objectives: In the present circumstances, a systematic review is necessary to integrate the available data from previously published peer-reviewed articles and published reports from several competent authorities to provide the prevalence and geographical distribution of the four curable STIs among the key population of India. Methods: All available articles will be retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane database, Scopus, Science Direct, and the Global Health network using the appropriate search terms. The data will be extracted through data extraction form as per PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) framework. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be performed according to the situation with the help of available conventional protocol. Discussion: The future systematic review, generated from the present protocol, may provide evidence of the prevalence and geographical distribution of the four curable STIs among the key population of India. We hope that the findings of the future systematic review will strengthen the existing surveillance system in India, to determine the above-mention STIs prevalence among key populations in India.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihir Bhatta & Agniva Majumdar & Utsha Ghosh & Piyali Ghosh & Papiya Banerji & Santhakumar Aridoss & Abhisek Royal & Subrata Biswas & Bhumika Tumkur Venkatesh & Rajatsuvra Adhikary & Shanta Dutta, 2023. "Sexually transmitted infections among key populations in India: A protocol for systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-8, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0279048
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279048
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279048&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0279048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zohreh Zahedi & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2017. "Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(10), pages 2511-2521, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mike Thelwall, 2018. "Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1231-1240, June.
    2. Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1721-1731, December.
    3. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Kaltrina Nuredini, 2021. "Investigating Altmetric Information For The Top 1000 Journals From Handelsblatt Ranking In Economic And Business Studies," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1315-1343, December.
    5. S. Ravikumar & Bidyut Bikash Boruah & M. N. Ravikumar, 2022. "Correlation study between citation count and Mendeley readership of the articles of Sri Lankan authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4873-4885, August.
    6. Ortega, José Luis, 2020. "Proposal of composed altmetric indicators based on prevalence and impact dimensions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    7. Zhichao Fang & Jonathan Dudek & Rodrigo Costas, 2020. "The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(12), pages 1455-1469, December.
    8. Latefa Ali Dardas & Malik Sallam & Amanda Woodward & Nadia Sweis & Narjes Sweis & Faleh A. Sawair, 2023. "Evaluating Research Impact Based on Semantic Scholar Highly Influential Citations, Total Citations, and Altmetric Attention Scores: The Quest for Refined Measures Remains Illusive," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Yu, Houqiang & Xiao, Tingting & Xu, Shenmeng & Wang, Yuefen, 2019. "Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 841-855.
    10. Wang, Zuzheng & Lu, Yongxu & Zhou, Yuanyuan & Ji, Jiaojiao, 2024. "SMIAltmetric: A comprehensive metric for evaluating social media impact of scientific papers on Twitter (X)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    11. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Mahshid Abdoli & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Paul Wilson & Jonathan Levitt, 2023. "Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(5), pages 582-593, May.
    12. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Wencan Tian & Xianwen Wang & Paul Wouters, 2020. "An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2519-2549, September.
    13. Wencan Tian & Zhichao Fang & Xianwen Wang & Rodrigo Costas, 2024. "A multi-dimensional analysis of usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations for journal and conference papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 985-1013, February.
    14. Hongxu Liu & Guangyuan Hu & Yin Li, 2024. "The enhanced research impact of self‐archiving platforms: Evidence from bioRxiv," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(8), pages 883-897, August.
    15. repec:plo:pone00:0234912 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Zahedi, Zohreh & Haustein, Stefanie, 2018. "On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 191-202.
    17. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    18. Timo Breuer & Philipp Schaer & Dirk Tunger, 2022. "Relevance assessments, bibliometrics, and altmetrics: a quantitative study on PubMed and arXiv," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2455-2478, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0279048. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.