↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 146 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 144 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 15 10%
Other 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 35 24%

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
#5,015,827
of 17,764,497 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,436
of 11,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,218
of 241,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#189
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,764,497 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. 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 241,349 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.