↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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.
Title
Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006386.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Furness, Anne-Marie Glenny, Helen V Worthington, Sue Pavitt, Richard Oliver, Jan E Clarkson, Michaelina Macluskey, Kelvin KW Chan, David I Conway

Abstract

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 59%
Unspecified 10 17%
Psychology 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 3 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 03 July 2019.
All research outputs
#659,786
of 13,322,622 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,125
of 10,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,372
of 146,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,322,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 146,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.