↓ Skip to main content

Radiotherapy and chemoradiation after surgery for early cervical cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 12 12%
Unspecified 9 9%
Other 30 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 63%
Unspecified 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,070,139
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,239
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,104
of 250,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#334
of 433 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 250,600 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 433 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.