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 |
Radiofrequency (thermal) ablation versus no intervention or other interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003046.pub3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sebastian Weis, Annegret Franke, Joachim Mössner, Janus C Jakobsen, Konrad Schoppmeyer |
Abstract |
Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Percutaneous interventional therapies, such as radiofrequency (thermal) ablation (RFA), have been developed for early hepatocellular carcinoma. RFA competes with other interventional techniques such as percutaneous ethanol injection, surgical resection, and liver transplantation. The potential benefits and harms of RFA compared with placebo, no intervention, chemotherapy, hepatic resection, liver transplantation, or other interventions are unclear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 3 | 50% |
Ireland | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 262 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 39 | 15% |
Researcher | 35 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 34 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 6% |
Other | 48 | 18% |
Unknown | 73 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 115 | 43% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 7% |
Psychology | 12 | 5% |
Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
Other | 24 | 9% |
Unknown | 82 | 31% |
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 03 April 2014.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,262
of 320,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 320,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.