| Title |
Management of drainage for malignant ascites in gynaecological cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007794.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison Keen, Debbie Fitzgerald, Andrew Bryant, Heather O Dickinson |
| Abstract |
Most patients with advanced ovarian cancer and some patients with advanced endometrial cancer need repeated drainage for malignant ascites. Guidelines to advise those involved in the drainage of ascites are usually produced locally and are generally not evidence-based but mainly based on clinicians' anecdotal evidence and experience. To discover whether there are ways of managing drains that have been demonstrated to improve the efficacy and quality of the procedure is key in making recommendations which could improve the quality of life (QOL) for women at this critical period of their lives. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 68% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#17,348,622
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,493
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,345
of 172,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 172,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.