↓ Skip to main content

Add-back therapy with GnRH analogues for uterine fibroids

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Add-back therapy with GnRH analogues for uterine fibroids
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010854.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael M Moroni, Wellington P Martins, Rui A Ferriani, Carolina S Vieira, Carolina O Nastri, Francisco José Candido Dos Reis, Luiz Gustavo Brito

Abstract

Uterine fibroids (also known as leiomyomas) are the most common benign pelvic tumours among women. They may be asymptomatic, or may be associated with pelvic symptoms such as bleeding and pain. Medical treatment of this condition is limited and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are the most effective agents. Long-term treatment with such agents, however, is restricted due to their adverse effects. The addition of other medications during treatment with GnRH analogues, a strategy known as add-back therapy, may limit these side effects. There is concern, however, that add-back therapy may also limit the efficacy of the GnRH analogues and that it may not be able to completely prevent their adverse effects.

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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 50%
Student > Postgraduate 2 33%
Librarian 2 33%
Researcher 2 33%
Unspecified 2 33%
Other 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 117%
Unspecified 2 33%
Psychology 1 17%
Social Sciences 1 17%
Arts and Humanities 1 17%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,230,448
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,613
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,091
of 221,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#199
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 221,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.