↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Post-operative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Post-operative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000563.pub7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annabel Goodwin, Sharon Parker, Davina Ghersi, Nicholas Wilcken

Abstract

The addition of radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery (BCS) was first shown to reduce the risk of ipsilateral recurrence in the treatment of invasive breast cancer. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a pre-invasive lesion. Recurrence of ipsilateral disease following BCS can be either DCIS or invasive breast cancer. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that RT can reduce the risk of recurrence, but assessment of potential long-term complications from addition of RT following BSC for DCIS has not been reported for women participating in RCTs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 157 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Other 13 8%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 34 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Psychology 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 39 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,648,910
of 15,418,020 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,397
of 11,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,181
of 261,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,418,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 261,110 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.