↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
13 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
252 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
626 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000978.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen V Worthington, Janet E Clarkson, Gemma Bryan, Susan Furness, Anne-Marie Glenny, Anne Littlewood, Martin G McCabe, Stefan Meyer, Tasneem Khalid, Philip Riley

Abstract

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 626 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Lebanon 1 <1%
Unknown 619 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 104 17%
Student > Bachelor 76 12%
Researcher 64 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 8%
Student > Postgraduate 44 7%
Other 126 20%
Unknown 162 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 280 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 77 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 2%
Other 48 8%
Unknown 176 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 16 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,488,404
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,050
of 13,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,844
of 121,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 121,806 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.