↓ Skip to main content

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, May 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

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
Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
Published in
BMJ Open, May 2014
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tengbin Xiong, Rebecca M Turner, Yinghui Wei, David E Neal, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Julian P T Higgins

Abstract

There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 98 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 19%
Researcher 20 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Professor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 28 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 36%
Unspecified 13 13%
Computer Science 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Physics and Astronomy 5 5%
Other 28 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 17 June 2014.
All research outputs
#801,077
of 13,351,428 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,816
of 11,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,654
of 190,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#46
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,351,428 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 190,446 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.