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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of endometriosis-associated pain and influence of conventional treatment: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1806-9282.61.06.507 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alessandra Bernadete Trovó de Marqui |
| Abstract |
Endometriosis is a chronic gynecological disease characterized by sustained painful symptoms that are responsible for a decline in the quality of life of sufferers. Conventional treatment includes surgical and pharmacological therapy aiming at reducing painful symptoms. This study aimed to evaluate pain levels in women with endometriosis, focusing on the influence of conventional treatment in controlling this variable. To do so, a literature search was conducted in the Medline/Pubmed databases, with 119 scientific articles found. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 were selected for reading and elaboration of this review. Thus, 9 studies evaluated the contribution of surgery, 17 the use of drugs to reduce pain levels in patients with endometriosis and one assessed surgical and medical treatment. The main results of these searches are presented and discussed in this revision. Surgery and the use of drugs provided reduced pain scores in patients with endometriosis but nevertheless exhibit disadvantages, such as risk of recurrence and side effects, respectively. Treatment of endometriosis is, therefore, a challenge for gynecologists and patients, as they must select the best therapeutic approach for this disease. However, improved quality of life in these patients has been obtained with the use of conventional treatment. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#174
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,157
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 395,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.