↓ Skip to main content

Retraction

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Oncology, November 2011
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Retraction
Published in
Annals of Oncology, November 2011
DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdr479
Pubmed ID
Abstract

The editors of Journal of Clinical Oncology identified a published paper in Annals of Oncology that appeared to represent a case of redundant publication involving the following articles: Long-term survival results of a randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus cisplatin, with methotrexate, vinblastine,doxorubicin, plus cisplatin in patients with bladder cancer. Hans von der Maase, Lisa Sengelov, James T. Roberts, Sergio Ricci, Luigi Dogliotti, T. Oliver, Malcolm J. Moore, Annamaria Zimmermann, and Michael Arning. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4602–4608. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2005.07.757. Long-term survival results of a randomized trial comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin and methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. J. T. Roberts, H. von der Maase, L. Sengeløv, P. F. Conte, L. Dogliotti, T. Oliver, M. J. Moore, A. Zimmermann and M. Arning. Ann Oncol 2006; 17 (Supplement 5): v 118–v 122. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdj965. Following the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, the editors of Annals of Oncology have analyzed these two articles and after communication with several of the authors have confirmed that this in indeed the case and we, the editors, hereby retract the redundant Annals article to correct the published record. Annals of Oncology apologizes on behalf of all concerned.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Student > Master 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Design 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#1,614,652
of 14,100,654 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Oncology
#1,055
of 5,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,409
of 281,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Oncology
#22
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,100,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 281,234 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.