↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 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
Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006387.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Marie Glenny, Susan Furness, Helen V Worthington, David I Conway, Richard Oliver, Jan E Clarkson, Michaelina Macluskey, Sue Pavitt, Kelvin KW Chan, Paul Brocklehurst, The CSROC Expert Panel

Abstract

The management of advanced oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers is problematic and has traditionally relied on surgery and radiotherapy, both of which are associated with substantial adverse effects. Radiotherapy has been in use since the 1950s and has traditionally been given as single daily doses. This method of dividing up the total dose, or fractionation, has been modified over the years and a variety of approaches have been developed with the aim of improving survival whilst maintaining acceptable toxicity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 280 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 21%
Researcher 41 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 13%
Unspecified 27 9%
Student > Postgraduate 25 9%
Other 96 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 163 57%
Unspecified 48 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Psychology 10 3%
Other 40 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 17 June 2016.
All research outputs
#500,822
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,550
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,814
of 148,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 148,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.