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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Radiotherapy and chemoradiation after surgery for early cervical cancer
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007583.pub3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Linda Rogers, Shing Shun N Siu, David Luesley, Andrew Bryant, Heather O Dickinson |
Abstract |
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2009. There is an ongoing debate about the indications for, and value of, adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy after radical surgery in women with early cervical cancer. Certain combinations of pathological risk factors are thought to represent sufficient risk for recurrence, that they justify the use of postoperative pelvic radiotherapy, though this has never been shown to improve overall survival, and use of more than one type of treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) increases the risks of side effects and complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
India | 1 | 50% |
Serbia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 247 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 34 | 14% |
Unspecified | 33 | 13% |
Student > Master | 27 | 11% |
Researcher | 17 | 7% |
Other | 15 | 6% |
Other | 56 | 22% |
Unknown | 67 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 97 | 39% |
Unspecified | 33 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
Other | 15 | 6% |
Unknown | 68 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,638,383
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,001
of 13,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,815
of 176,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 176,795 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.