| Title |
Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007945.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yin Ling Woo, Maria Kyrgiou, Andrew Bryant, Thomas Everett, Heather O Dickinson |
| Abstract |
Gynaecological cancers are the second most common cancers among women. It has been suggested that centralised care improves outcomes but consensus is lacking. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 4 | 44% |
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Brazil | 1 | 11% |
| Ireland | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 219 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 14% |
| Researcher | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 9% |
| Other | 40 | 18% |
| Unknown | 67 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Unknown | 69 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 31 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,394,877
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,866
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,836
of 169,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 169,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.