↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Photodynamic therapy for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
Title
Photodynamic therapy for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009810.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Lieder, Muhammad K Khan, Burkard M Lippert

Abstract

Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) is a benign condition of the mucosa of the upper aerodigestive tract. It is characterised by recurrent papillomatous lesions and is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV). Frequent recurrence and rapid papilloma growth are common and in part responsible for the onset of potentially life-threatening symptoms. Most patients afflicted by the condition will require repeated surgical treatments to maintain their airway, and these may result in scarring and voice problems. Photodynamic therapy introduces a light-sensitising agent, which is administered either orally or by injection. This substance (called a photo-sensitiser) is selectively retained in hyperplastic and neoplastic tissue, including papilloma. It is then activated by light of a specific wavelength and may be used as a sole or adjuvant treatment for RRP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Researcher 13 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 74 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Psychology 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 83 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,348,916
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,493
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,500
of 242,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#210
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 242,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.