| Title |
Evaluation of follow‐up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006119.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tilean Clarke, Khadra Galaal, Andrew Bryant, Raj Naik |
| Abstract |
Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer and seventh commonest cause of death in women worldwide. Traditionally, many people who have been treated for cancer undergo long-term follow-up in secondary care. However, it has been suggested that the use of routine review may not be effective in improving survival, quality of life (QoL), or relieving anxiety, or both. In addition, traditional follow-up may not be cost-effective. |
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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 10% |
| Researcher | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 16% |
| Unknown | 64 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Psychology | 13 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Unknown | 66 | 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 31 May 2023.
All research outputs
#5,189,339
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,107
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,367
of 250,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#138
of 218 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 250,219 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.