You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs. uterine curettage in the uterine artery embolization-based management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Women's Health, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6874-14-116 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yifeng He, Xin Wu, Qiujing Zhu, Xuezhe Wu, Lingda Feng, Xia Wu, Aimin Zhao, Wen Di |
| Abstract |
The number of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) has significantly increased in the recent decade. Although uterine artery embolization (UAE) has been adopted to minimize the blood loss during uterine curettage removing of CSP, massive bleeding and uterine rupture can still be frequently encountered. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a novel combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy technique with the traditional curettage in removing the conceptus and repairing the incision defect following the UAE management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
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 25 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,306,466
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#1,243
of 1,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,189
of 252,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 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 1,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 252,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.