↓ Skip to main content

Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007945.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yin Ling Woo, Maria Kyrgiou, Andrew Bryant, Thomas Everett, Heather O Dickinson

Abstract

Gynaecological cancers are the second most common cancers among women. It has been suggested that centralised care improves outcomes but consensus is lacking.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Unspecified 7 10%
Librarian 7 10%
Other 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 49%
Unspecified 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 13 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,201,335
of 12,232,631 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,946
of 8,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,839
of 113,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,232,631 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 113,966 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.