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 |
Surgical interventions for high‐grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007928.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sonali Kaushik, Litha Pepas, Andy Nordin, Andrew Bryant, Heather O Dickinson, Theresa A Lawrie |
| Abstract |
This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 1.Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-malignant condition of the vulval skin. This uncommon chronic skin condition of the vulva is associated with a high risk of recurrence and the potential to progress to vulval cancer. The condition is complicated by its multicentric and multifocal nature. The incidence of this condition appears to be rising, particularly in the younger age group. There is a lack of consensus on the optimal surgical treatment method. However, the rationale for the surgical treatment of VIN has been to treat the symptoms and exclude any underlying malignancy, with the continued aim of preserving the vulval anatomy and function. Repeated treatments affect local cosmesis and cause psychosexual morbidity, thus impacting he individual's quality of life. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 178 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
| Researcher | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 19% |
| Unknown | 64 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 11% |
| Unknown | 73 | 41% |
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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,680,622
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,852
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,390
of 236,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#133
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 236,191 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.