↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of follow-up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Evaluation of follow-up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006119.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tilean Clarke, Khadra Galaal, Andrew Bryant, Raj Naik

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer and seventh commonest cause of death in women worldwide. Traditionally, many people who have been treated for cancer undergo long-term follow-up in secondary care. However, it has been suggested that the use of routine review may not be effective in improving survival, quality of life (QoL), or relieving anxiety, or both. In addition, traditional follow-up may not be cost-effective.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 105 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Psychology 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#11,143,837
of 14,656,415 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,908
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,986
of 200,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#209
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,656,415 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 200,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.