↓ Skip to main content

Tamoxifen or letrozole versus standard methods for women with estrogen‐receptor positive breast cancer undergoing oocyte or embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproduction

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Tamoxifen or letrozole versus standard methods for women with estrogen‐receptor positive breast cancer undergoing oocyte or embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproduction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010240.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dahhan T, Balkenende E, van Wely M, Linn S, Goddijn M, Taghride Dahhan, Eva Balkenende, Madelon van Wely, Sabine Linn, Mariëtte Goddijn

Abstract

Cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos preceded by controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) can increase the chance of future pregnancy in women with breast cancer who risk therapy-induced ovarian failure. In women with estrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancer, alternative COS protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole are being used to theoretically inhibit breast cancer growth during COS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Other 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 73%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%

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 18 January 2014.
All research outputs
#6,346,097
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,823
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,000
of 166,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#69
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 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 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 166,171 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.