↓ Skip to main content

Surgery versus radical endotherapies for early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Surgery versus radical endotherapies for early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007334.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathy Bennett, Susi Green, John DeCaestecker, Max Almond, Hugh Barr, Pradeep Bhandari, Krish Ragunath, Rajvinder Singh, Janusz Jankowski

Abstract

Barrett's oesophagus is one of the most common pre-malignant lesions in the world. Currently the mainstay of therapy is surgical management of advanced cancer but this has improved the five-year survival very little since the 1980s. As a consequence, improved survival relies on early detection through endoscopic surveillance programmes. Success of this strategy relies on the fact that late-stage pre-malignant lesions or very early cancers can be cured by intervention. Currently there is considerable controversy over which method is best: that is conventional open surgery or endotherapy (techniques involving endoscopy).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Unspecified 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 54%
Unspecified 11 13%
Psychology 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 13 16%

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 18 November 2012.
All research outputs
#10,750,962
of 13,515,188 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,643
of 10,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,471
of 246,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#470
of 513 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,515,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 246,844 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 513 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.