↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004751.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lídia RF Medeiros, Daniela D Rosa, Mary C Bozzetti, Jandyra MG Fachel, Susan Furness, Ray Garry, Maria INES Rosa, Airton T Stein

Abstract

Over the last 10 years laparoscopy and minilaparotomy have become increasingly common approaches for the surgical removal of benign ovarian tumours. However, in the event that a tumour is found to be malignant, laparotomy is the appropriate procedure. Careful preoperative assessment including transvaginal ultrasound with morphological scoring, colour doppler assessment of vascular quality, and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) level is desirable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 104 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 30 28%
Unknown 13 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 19 18%

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 06 November 2014.
All research outputs
#7,860,057
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,611
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,792
of 231,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#201
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 231,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.