↓ Skip to main content

Alopecia: evaluation and treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
239 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Alopecia: evaluation and treatment
Published in
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, July 2011
DOI 10.2147/ccid.s10182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Gordon, Katherine Gordon, Antonella Tosti

Abstract

Hair loss is a very common complaint. Patients may describe increased shedding and diffuse or localized alopecia. The differential diagnosis of hair loss includes a number of disorders causing cicatricial or noncicatricial alopecias. This paper describes the clinical approaches and diagnostic tests that are useful in the evaluation of patients presenting with alopecia. It also reviews treatments for noncicatricial alopecias, including androgenetic alopecia, alopecia areata, and telogen effluvium, as well as cicatricial alopecias, including lichen planopilaris, its clinical variant frontal fibrosing alopecia, and discoid lupus erythematosus.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 238 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 14%
Student > Master 33 14%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Postgraduate 21 9%
Other 12 5%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 87 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Chemistry 7 3%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 91 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 April 2015.
All research outputs
#5,731,208
of 33,918,391 outputs
Outputs from Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
#376
of 1,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,108
of 163,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,918,391 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 163,996 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.