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 |
Follow‐up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008767.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Lanceley, Alison Fiander, Mary McCormack, Andrew Bryant |
| Abstract |
Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Although surveillance of women after completion of primary treatment for cervical cancer is purported to have an impact on their overall survival (OS), no strictly defined follow-up protocols are available for these women. Wide diversity in management has been noted in the follow-up of women who have completed primary treatment for cervical cancer. Traditionally, women treated for cervical cancer undergo routine long-term, even life-long, follow-up. The primary objective of this practice has been to detect and treat recurrence early. This review sets out to systematically evaluate available evidence for the role of different models of follow-up after cervical cancer and the optimal use of investigations. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 221 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 13% |
| Researcher | 21 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 17% |
| Unknown | 81 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 13% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 85 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 September 2023.
All research outputs
#5,189,022
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,107
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,491
of 318,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 318,046 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.