↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Liver resection versus other treatments for neuroendocrine tumours in patients with resectable liver metastases

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Liver resection versus other treatments for neuroendocrine tumours in patients with resectable liver metastases
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007060.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, Rajarajan Ramamoorthy, Dinesh Sharma, Brian R Davidson

Abstract

Neuroendocrine tumours are tumours of cells, which possess secretory granules and originate from the neuroectoderm. While liver resection is generally advocated in patients with resectable liver metastases, recent studies have shown good survival in patients with disseminated neuroendocrine tumours who underwent thermal ablation using radiofrequency.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Postgraduate 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 56%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 21 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 February 2015.
All research outputs
#17,518,545
of 22,510,372 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,226
of 12,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,200
of 80,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,510,372 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 80,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.