↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tamoxifen or letrozole versus standard methods for women with estrogen‐receptor positive breast cancer undergoing oocyte or embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproduction

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Tamoxifen or letrozole versus standard methods for women with estrogen‐receptor positive breast cancer undergoing oocyte or embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproduction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010240.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taghride Dahhan, Eva Balkenende, Madelon van Wely, Sabine Linn, Mariëtte Goddijn

Abstract

Cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos preceded by controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) can increase the chance of future pregnancy in women with breast cancer who risk therapy-induced ovarian failure. In women with estrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancer, alternative COS protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole are being used to theoretically inhibit breast cancer growth during COS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 32 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,231,614
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,912
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,633
of 229,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#216
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 229,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.