↓ Skip to main content

Hormone therapy in postmenopausal women and risk of endometrial hyperplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
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.
Title
Hormone therapy in postmenopausal women and risk of endometrial hyperplasia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000402.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Furness, Helen Roberts, Jane Marjoribanks, Anne Lethaby

Abstract

Reduced circulating estrogen levels around the time of the menopause can induce unacceptable symptoms that affect the health and well-being of women. Hormone therapy (both unopposed estrogen and estrogen/progestogen combinations) is an effective treatment for these symptoms, but is associated with risk of harms. Guidelines recommend that hormone therapy be given at the lowest effective dose and treatment should be reviewed regularly. The aim of this review is to identify the minimum dose(s) of progestogen required to be added to estrogen so that the rate of endometrial hyperplasia is not increased compared to placebo.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 236 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 13%
Student > Bachelor 31 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Student > Master 28 12%
Other 14 6%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 64 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Psychology 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 71 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,535,437
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,075
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,492
of 186,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#84
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 186,217 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.