↓ Skip to main content

Surgical treatment of stage IA2 cervical cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Surgical treatment of stage IA2 cervical cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010870.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fani Kokka, Andrew Bryant, Elly Brockbank, Arjun Jeyarajah

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. Women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2 cervical cancer have measured stromal invasion (when the cancer breaks through the basement membrane of the epithelium) of greater than 3 mm and no greater than 5 mm in depth with a horizontal surface extension of no more than 7 mm. For stage IA2 disease, radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy is the standard treatment. In order to avoid complications of more radical surgical methods, less invasive options, such as simple hysterectomy, simple trachelectomy or conisation, with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy, may be feasible for stage IA2 disease, considering the relative low risk of local or distant metastatic disease. The evidence for less radical tumour excision and for the role of systematic lymphadenectomy in stage IA2 cervical cancer is not clear.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 15%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 25 24%

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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#5,259,963
of 17,749,513 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,653
of 11,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,880
of 198,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#140
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,749,513 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 198,179 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.