↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

High dose rate versus low dose rate intracavity brachytherapy for locally advanced uterine cervix cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Postgraduate 14 11%
Other 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 36 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 39 30%

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
#6,032,295
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,835
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,171
of 255,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#164
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 255,208 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.