↓ Skip to main content

Radiotherapy versus open surgery versus endolaryngeal surgery (with or without laser) for early laryngeal squamous cell cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 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
Radiotherapy versus open surgery versus endolaryngeal surgery (with or without laser) for early laryngeal squamous cell cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002027.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Warner, Jessal Chudasama, Charles G Kelly, Sean Loughran, Kenneth McKenzie, Richard Wight, Paola Dey

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 232 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 13%
Student > Bachelor 31 13%
Other 20 9%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 62 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Psychology 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 1%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 71 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,832,407
of 25,388,353 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,406
of 12,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,422
of 363,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#189
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,353 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 363,598 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.