ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2017
Changes in the Distribution of Sex Partners in the United States: 2002 to 2011-2013.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adapting Sexual Behavior Survey Data to Parameterize an Agent-Based Model of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Transmission.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of catch-up 9-valent HPV vaccination of individuals through age 45 years in the United States.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- Chlamydia and Gonorrhea: Shifting Age-Based Positivity Among Young Females, 2010-2017.American journal of preventive medicine · 2020Article
- Social and behavioural research prospects for sexually transmissible infection prevention in the era of advances in biomedical approaches.Sexual health · 2020Article
- Trends in factors indicating increased risk for STI among key subpopulations in the United States, 2002-2015.Sexually transmitted infections · 2020Article
- A sexually transmitted infection model with long-term partnerships in homogeneous and heterogenous populations.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the current analysis is to examine subgroup differences in the distribution of opposite-sex sex partners in the United States across an approximate 10-year period to identify patterns that may inform sexually transmitted infection research and prevention.
methodsData were drawn from the 2002 and 2011-2013 National Survey of Family Growth, a US probability-based household survey focusing on sexual and reproductive health. The measures included in this analysis were lifetime opposite-sex sex partners and opposite-sex sex partners in the past year. Analyses were conducted separately for men and women. All analyses were conducted in R and R-studio with the "survey" package, focusing on medians, the 80th, and 95th quartile.
resultsIn 2002, there were significant differences between men and women in median number of lifetime sex partners with men reporting more lifetime partners. However, in the 2011-2013 data, these differences are no longer significant. Still, the findings suggest that the top 20% and top 5% of men are reporting significantly more lifetime partners than their female counterparts. In comparison, partners in the past year remain relatively unchanged for both men and women.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that there were important changes in the distribution of sex partners between 2002 and 2011-2013 that have implications for sexually transmitted infection prevention. Median lifetime partners are no longer different for women and men: however, the distribution of lifetime partners among men is becoming even more skewed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.