↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006651.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Kucukmetin, Ioannis Biliatis, Raj Naik, Andrew Bryant

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Standard surgical management for selected early-stage cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy. Traditionally, radical hysterectomy has been carried out via the abdominal route and this remains the gold standard surgical management of early cervical cancer. In recent years, advances in minimal access surgery have made it possible to perform radical hysterectomy with the use of laparoscopy with the aim of reducing the surgical morbidity and promoting a faster recovery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 161 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Other 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Researcher 10 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 54 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 14%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 53 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#12,883,635
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,832
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,383
of 207,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#170
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 207,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.