↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Progestogens with or without oestrogen for irregular uterine bleeding associated with anovulation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Progestogens with or without oestrogen for irregular uterine bleeding associated with anovulation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001895.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martha Hickey, Jenny M Higham, Ian Fraser

Abstract

Irregular menstrual bleeding may arise due to exogenous sex steroids, lesions of the genital tract or be associated with anovulation. Irregular bleeding due to oligo/anovulation (previously called dysfunctional uterine bleeding or DUB) is more common at the extremes of reproductive life, and in women with ovulatory disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). In anovulatory cycles there may be prolonged oestrogen stimulation of the endometrium without progesterone withdrawal and so cycles are irregular and bleeding may be heavy. This is the rationale for using cyclical progestogens during the second half of the menstrual cycle, in order to provoke a regular withdrawal bleed. Continuous progestogen is intended to induce endometrial atrophy and hence to prevent oestrogen-stimulated endometrial proliferation. Progestogens, and oestrogens and progestogens in combination, are widely used in the management of irregular menstrual bleeding, but the regime, dose and type of progestogen used vary widely, with little consensus about the optimum treatment approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ukraine 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 8 10%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Psychology 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 17 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,237,922
of 17,520,445 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,549
of 11,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,963
of 127,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,520,445 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 127,705 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 53% of its contemporaries.