| Title |
Continuous versus cyclic oral contraceptives for the treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-015-3641-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Konstantinos A. Zorbas, Konstantinos P. Economopoulos, Nikos F. Vlahos |
| Abstract |
Recurrence of endometriosis after conservative surgery has been observed in 40-50 % of patients within the first 5 years. A variety of regimens such as combined oral contraceptives, GnRH agonists, danazol, and progestins have been used postoperatively to reduce recurrence rates. Oral contraceptives (oCP) have been used either in a cyclic or in a continuous (no pill-free interval) fashion. The purpose of this article was to summarize the existing evidence on the efficacy and patient compliance for the use of oCP in a continuous versus cyclic fashion following conservative surgery for endometriosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 3 | 43% |
| India | 1 | 14% |
| Greece | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 20% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,720,485
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#264
of 2,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,333
of 364,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 364,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 91% of its contemporaries.