You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Reduced High-Dose Volume Versus Standard Volume Radiation Therapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Results of the BC2001 Trial (CRUK/01/004)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.06.2044 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert A. Huddart, Emma Hall, Syed A. Hussain, Peter Jenkins, Christine Rawlings, Jean Tremlett, Malcolm Crundwell, Fawzi A. Adab, Denise Sheehan, Isabel Syndikus, Carey Hendron, Rebecca Lewis, Rachel Waters, Nicholas D. James |
| Abstract |
To test whether reducing radiation dose to uninvolved bladder while maintaining dose to the tumor would reduce side effects without impairing local control in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 Kingdom | 7 | 37% |
| United States | 3 | 16% |
| Spain | 3 | 16% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Isle of Man | 1 | 5% |
| Portugal | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 74% |
| Scientists | 3 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 147 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 15% |
| Other | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 33 | 22% |
| Unknown | 25 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 91 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 38 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 15 February 2021.
All research outputs
#658,439
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
#184
of 11,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,429
of 220,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
#1
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. 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 220,505 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 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 99% of its contemporaries.