↓ Skip to main content

Pre-operative endometrial thinning agents before endometrial destruction for heavy menstrual bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Pre-operative endometrial thinning agents before endometrial destruction for heavy menstrual bleeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010241.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu Hwee Tan, Anne Lethaby

Abstract

Heavy menstrual bleeding is one of the most common reasons for referral of premenopausal women to a gynaecologist. Although medical therapy is generally first line, many women eventually will require further treatment. Endometrial ablation by hysteroscopic and more recent "second-generation" devices such as balloon, radiofrequency or microwave ablation offers a day-case surgical alternative to hysterectomy. Complete endometrial destruction is one of the main determinants of treatment success. Surgery is most effective if undertaken when endometrial thickness is less than four millimeters. One option is to perform the surgery in the immediate postmenstrual phase, which is not always practical. The other option is to use hormonal agents that induce endometrial thinning pre-operatively. The most commonly evaluated agents are goserelin (a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue, or GnRHa) and danazol. Other GnRH analogues and progestogens have also been studied, although fewer data are available. It has been suggested that these agents will reduce operating time, improve the intrauterine operating environment and reduce absorption of fluid used for intraoperative uterine cavity distension. They may also improve long-term outcomes, including menstrual loss and dysmenorrhoea.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 11%
Brazil 1 11%
United States 1 11%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 322%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 211%
Unspecified 14 156%
Researcher 10 111%
Student > Bachelor 8 89%
Other 24 267%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 589%
Unspecified 16 178%
Psychology 10 111%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 89%
Social Sciences 5 56%
Other 12 133%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 February 2014.
All research outputs
#7,264,103
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,013
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,983
of 203,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 203,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.