↓ Skip to main content

Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003552.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, David A Grimes, Maria F Gallo, Laurie L Stockton, Kenneth F Schulz

Abstract

The delivery of combination contraceptive steroids from a transdermal contraceptive patch or a contraceptive vaginal ring offers potential advantages over the traditional oral route. The transdermal patch and vaginal ring could require a lower dose due to increased bioavailability and improved user compliance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 23%
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 44%
Psychology 13 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 35 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,743,740
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,140
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,031
of 145,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 145,784 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.