↓ Skip to main content

Triphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Triphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003553.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huib AAM Van Vliet, David A Grimes, Laureen M Lopez, Kenneth F Schulz, Frans M Helmerhorst

Abstract

Side effects of oral contraceptive (OC) pills discourage adherence to and continuation of OC regimens. Strategies to decrease adverse effects led to the introduction of the triphasic OC in the 1980s. Whether triphasic OCs have higher accidental pregnancy rates than monophasic pills is unknown. Nor is it known if triphasic pills give better cycle control and fewer side effects than the monophasic pills.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 124 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 48 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 49 38%

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 11 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,078,193
of 16,039,397 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,811
of 11,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,943
of 191,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,039,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 191,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.