↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for melanoma in situ, including lentigo maligna

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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 for melanoma in situ, including lentigo maligna
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010308.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thrasivoulos Tzellos, Athanassios Kyrgidis, Simone Mocellin, An-Wen Chan, Pierluigi Pilati, Zoe Apalla

Abstract

Malignant melanoma is a form of skin cancer associated with significant mortality once it has spread beyond the skin. Melanoma in situ (MIS) is the earliest histologically recognisable stage of malignant melanoma and represents a precursor of invasive melanoma. Lentigo maligna (LM) represents a subtype of pre-invasive intraepidermal melanoma associated specifically with chronic exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Over the past two decades, the incidence of MIS has increased significantly, even more than the invasive counterpart. There are several treatment options for MIS, but no consensus exists on the best therapeutic management of this condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 9 10%
Unspecified 9 10%
Other 32 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 57%
Unspecified 16 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#834,932
of 13,116,247 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,683
of 10,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,060
of 294,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,116,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 294,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.