↓ Skip to main content

Oral contraceptives for functional ovarian cysts

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Oral contraceptives for functional ovarian cysts
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006134.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A Grimes, LaShawn B. Jones, Laureen M Lopez, Kenneth F Schulz

Abstract

Functional ovarian cysts are a common gynecological problem among women of reproductive age worldwide. When large, persistent, or painful, these cysts may require operations, sometimes resulting in removal of the ovary. Since early oral contraceptives were associated with a reduced incidence of functional ovarian cysts, many clinicians inferred that birth control pills could be used to treat cysts as well. This became a common clinical practice in the early 1970s.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 96 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Unspecified 9 9%
Other 33 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 60%
Unspecified 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 10 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,159,310
of 13,606,441 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,459
of 10,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,562
of 188,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,606,441 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 188,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.