| Title |
Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000329.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosalie J Fergusson, Anne Lethaby, Sasha Shepperd, Cindy Farquhar |
| Abstract |
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), which includes both menorrhagia and metrorrhagia, is an important cause of ill health in women. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Several less invasive surgical techniques (e.g. transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE), laser approaches) and various methods of endometrial ablation have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 44% |
| Psychology | 9 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 29 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 344. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#89,943
of 24,520,935 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 12,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#762
of 318,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,520,935 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 318,176 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 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 98% of its contemporaries.