↓ Skip to main content

Levothyroxine or minimally invasive therapies for benign thyroid nodules

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Levothyroxine or minimally invasive therapies for benign thyroid nodules
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004098.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Bandeira-Echtler, Karla Bergerhoff, Bernd Richter

Abstract

Thyroid nodules (TN) are common in the adult population. Some physicians use suppressive levothyroxine (LT4) therapy to achieve a reduction in the number and volume of TN. In addition, minimally invasive treatments, such as percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) sclerotherapy, laser photocoagulation (LP), and microwave (MW), radiofrequency (RF) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation, have been proposed, especially for pressure symptoms and cosmetic complaints, as an alternative to surgery. However, the risk to benefit ratio of all treatments for benign TN is currently unknown.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 146 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Unspecified 18 12%
Other 46 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 52%
Unspecified 24 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Psychology 9 6%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 19 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,135,176
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,583
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,649
of 188,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#112
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 188,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.