↓ Skip to main content

Continuous or extended cycle vs. cyclic use of combined hormonal contraceptives for contraception

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Continuous or extended cycle vs. cyclic use of combined hormonal contraceptives for contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004695.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Edelman, Elizabeth Micks, Maria F Gallo, Jeffrey T Jensen, David A Grimes

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 2%
Peru 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 179 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 43 23%
Unknown 32 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Psychology 12 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 36 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 253. 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 24 April 2020.
All research outputs
#62,022
of 15,271,215 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#784
of 193,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,271,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 193,731 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.