| Title |
High dose rate versus low dose rate intracavity brachytherapy for locally advanced uterine cervix cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007563.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruifeng Liu, XiaoHu Wang, JinHui Tian, KeHu Yang, Jun Wang, Lei Jiang, Xiang Yong Hao |
| Abstract |
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2010 (Issue 7).Carcinoma of the uterine cervix is the second most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death among women. Radiotherapy has been used successfully to treat cervical cancer for nearly a century. The combination of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and intracavity brachytherapy (ICBT) has become a standard treatment for cervical cancer. Whether high dose rate (HDR) or low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy improves outcomes in terms of local control rates, survival and complications for women with cervical cancer remains controversial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 156 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 15% |
| Unknown | 55 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Unknown | 59 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,054,132
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,570
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,820
of 268,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 268,336 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.