↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006651.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Kucukmetin, Ioannis Biliatis, Raj Naik, Andrew Bryant

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Standard surgical management for selected early-stage cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy. Traditionally, radical hysterectomy has been carried out via the abdominal route and this remains the gold standard surgical management of early cervical cancer. In recent years, advances in minimal access surgery have made it possible to perform radical hysterectomy with the use of laparoscopy with the aim of reducing the surgical morbidity and promoting a faster recovery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 9 11%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Psychology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 14 17%

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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,057,273
of 13,622,595 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,896
of 10,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,122
of 165,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,622,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 165,301 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.