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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 32 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 31% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 30% |
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
#15,231,614
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,912
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,633
of 229,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#216
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 229,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.