The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumour
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004751.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lídia RF Medeiros, Daniela D Rosa, Mary C Bozzetti, Jandyra MG Fachel, Susan Furness, Ray Garry, Maria INES Rosa, Airton T Stein |
| Abstract |
Over the last 10 years laparoscopy and minilaparotomy have become increasingly common approaches for the surgical removal of benign ovarian tumours. However, in the event that a tumour is found to be malignant, laparotomy is the appropriate procedure. Careful preoperative assessment including transvaginal ultrasound with morphological scoring, colour doppler assessment of vascular quality, and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) level is desirable. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 200 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 12% |
| Researcher | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 43 | 21% |
| Unknown | 62 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 4% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Unknown | 69 | 34% |
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 20 November 2020.
All research outputs
#7,634,527
of 26,150,873 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,987
of 13,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,800
of 109,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,150,873 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 13,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. 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 109,286 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.