↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of different treatment modalities for the management of adult-onset granulosa cell tumours of the ovary (primary and recurrent)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Effectiveness of different treatment modalities for the management of adult-onset granulosa cell tumours of the ovary (primary and recurrent)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006912.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahalakshmi Gurumurthy, Andrew Bryant, Smruta Shanbhag

Abstract

Granulosa cell tumour is a rare gynaecological tumour of the ovary with recurrences many years after initial diagnosis and treatment. Evidence-based management of granulosa cell tumour of the ovary is limited, and treatment has not been standardised. Surgery, including fertility-sparing procedures for young women, has traditionally been the standard treatment. Adjuvant treatments following surgery have been based on non-randomised trials. A combination of bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP) has traditionally been used for treatment of advanced and/or recurrent disease that cannot be optimally managed surgically.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 16 17%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 28 30%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 54%
Unspecified 18 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Psychology 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 1 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,402,806
of 13,406,972 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,990
of 10,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,847
of 201,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#92
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,406,972 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. 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 201,499 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 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 58% of its contemporaries.