| Title |
Continuous or extended cycle vs. cyclic use of combined hormonal contraceptives for contraception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004695.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison Edelman, Elizabeth Micks, Makalapua L Motu’apuaka, Lyndsey S. Benson, Fiona Stewart |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 7 | 25% |
| United States | 4 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 89% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 325 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 4 | 1% |
| Peru | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 317 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 10% |
| Researcher | 34 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 10% |
| Other | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 61 | 19% |
| Unknown | 109 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 102 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 6% |
| Psychology | 18 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 4% |
| Other | 37 | 11% |
| Unknown | 120 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 285. 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 05 November 2023.
All research outputs
#125,836
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#231
of 13,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#976
of 240,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 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 13,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 240,525 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 241 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.