↓ Skip to main content

Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inf…

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Oncology, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 5,365)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
108 news outlets
twitter
114 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial
Published in
Lancet Oncology, November 2019
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30569-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas H Brand, Alison C Tree, Peter Ostler, Hans van der Voet, Andrew Loblaw, William Chu, Daniel Ford, Shaun Tolan, Suneil Jain, Alexander Martin, John Staffurth, Philip Camilleri, Kiran Kancherla, John Frew, Andrew Chan, Ian S Dayes, Daniel Henderson, Stephanie Brown, Clare Cruickshank, Stephanie Burnett, Aileen Duffton, Clare Griffin, Victoria Hinder, Kirsty Morrison, Olivia Naismith, Emma Hall, Nicholas van As, D Dodds, E Lartigau, S Patton, A Thompson, M Winkler, P Wells, T Lymberiou, D Saunders, M Vilarino-Varela, P Vavassis, T Tsakiridis, R Carlson, G Rodrigues, J Tanguay, S Iqbal, M Winkler, S Morgan, A Mihai, A Li, O Din, M Panades, R Wade, Y Rimmer, J Armstrong, M Panades, N Oommen

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 114 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 15%
Other 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 54%
Engineering 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 2 2%
Design 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 30 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 924. 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 07 July 2020.
All research outputs
#7,505
of 15,879,709 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Oncology
#13
of 5,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225
of 268,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Oncology
#2
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,879,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 268,970 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.