↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 Mendeley
Title
Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008054.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Arbyn, Jolien Roelens, Cindy Simoens, Frank Buntinx, Evangelos Paraskevaidis, Pierre PL Martin-Hirsch, Walter J Prendiville

Abstract

Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions (LSIL) are minor lesions of the cervical epithelium, detectable by cytological examination of cells collected from the surface of the cervix of a woman.Usually, women with ASCUS and LSIL do not have cervical (pre-) cancer, however a substantial proportion of them do have underlying high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN, grade 2 or 3) and so are at increased risk for developing cervical cancer. Therefore, accurate triage of women with ASCUS or LSIL is required to identify those who need further management.This review evaluates two ways to triage women with ASCUS or LSIL: repeating the cytological test, and DNA testing for high-risk types of the human papillomavirus (hrHPV) - the main causal factor of cervical cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 248 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 17%
Researcher 37 15%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 8%
Other 49 19%
Unknown 47 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 58 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 18 June 2020.
All research outputs
#661,093
of 17,986,329 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,621
of 11,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,566
of 164,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,986,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 164,107 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 93% of its contemporaries.