↓ Skip to main content

Follow-up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Follow-up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008767.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Lanceley, Alison Fiander, Mary McCormack, Andrew Bryant

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Although surveillance of women after completion of primary treatment for cervical cancer is purported to have an impact on their overall survival (OS), no strictly defined follow-up protocols are available for these women. Wide diversity in management has been noted in the follow-up of women who have completed primary treatment for cervical cancer. Traditionally, women treated for cervical cancer undergo routine long-term, even life-long, follow-up. The primary objective of this practice has been to detect and treat recurrence early. This review sets out to systematically evaluate available evidence for the role of different models of follow-up after cervical cancer and the optimal use of investigations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 19%
Student > Master 18 17%
Unspecified 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 31 30%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 50%
Unspecified 18 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,323,526
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,773
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,030
of 239,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 239,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.