↓ Skip to main content

Biopsy versus resection for the management of low‐grade gliomas

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Biopsy versus resection for the management of low‐grade gliomas
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009319.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anand Veeravagu, Bowen Jiang, Cassie Ludwig, Steven D Chang, Keith L Black, Chirag G Patil, Veeravagu A, Jiang B, Ludwig C, Chang SD, Black KL, Patil CG

Abstract

Low-grade gliomas (LGG) constitute a class of slow-growing primary brain neoplasms. Patients with clinically and radiographically suspected LGG have two initial surgical options, biopsy or resection. Biopsy can provide a histological diagnosis with minimal risk but does not offer a direct treatment. Resection may have additional benefits such as increasing survival and delaying recurrence, but is associated with a higher risk for surgical morbidity. There remains controversy about the role of biopsy versus resection and the relative clinical outcomes for the management of LGG.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Singapore 1 2%
Unknown 53 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Other 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 62%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 6 10%

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 10 May 2013.
All research outputs
#9,293,744
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,024
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,870
of 134,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 134,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.