↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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 126 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 124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Other 12 10%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 23 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,925,647
of 15,277,053 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,480
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,007
of 249,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#308
of 478 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,277,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 249,830 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 478 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.