↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Evaluation of follow-up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of follow-up strategies for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006119.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tilean Clarke, Khadra Galaal, Andrew Bryant, Raj Naik

Abstract

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer and seventh commonest cause of death in women worldwide. Traditionally, many people who have been treated for cancer undergo long-term follow-up in secondary care. However, it has been suggested that the use of routine review may not be effective in improving survival, quality of life (QoL), or relieving anxiety, or both. In addition, traditional follow-up may not be cost-effective.

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 173 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 56 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Psychology 13 7%
Unspecified 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 58 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,830,418
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,488
of 12,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,746
of 238,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 238,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.