↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to reduce haemorrhage during myomectomy for fibroids

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 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
Interventions to reduce haemorrhage during myomectomy for fibroids
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005355.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eugene J Kongnyuy, Charles Shey Wiysonge

Abstract

Benign smooth muscle tumours of the uterus, known as fibroids or myomas, are often symptomless. However, about one-third of women with fibroids will present with symptoms that are severe enough to warrant treatment. The standard treatment of symptomatic fibroids is hysterectomy (that is surgical removal of the uterus) for women who have completed childbearing, and myomectomy for women who desire future childbearing or simply want to preserve their uterus. Myomectomy, the surgical removal of myomas, can be associated with life-threatening bleeding. Excessive bleeding can necessitate emergency blood transfusion. Knowledge of the effectiveness of the interventions to reduce bleeding during myomectomy is essential to enable evidence-based clinical decisions. This is an update of the review published in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 11).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 200%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 150%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 150%
Student > Master 2 100%
Researcher 2 100%
Other 7 350%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 600%
Unspecified 4 200%
Psychology 2 100%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 50%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 50%
Other 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,666,400
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,954
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,818
of 199,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 203 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 86th 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 62% 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 199,039 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.