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 |
A practical review of magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation and management of cervical cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-016-0591-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma C. Fields, Elisabeth Weiss |
| Abstract |
Cervical cancer is a leading cause of mortality in women worldwide. Staging and management of cervical cancer has for many years been based on clinical exam and basic imaging such as intravenous pyelogram and x-ray. Unfortunately, despite advances in radiotherapy and the inclusion of chemotherapy in the standard plan for locally advanced disease, local control has been unsatisfactory. This situation has changed only recently with the increasing implementation of magnetic resonance image (MRI)-guided brachytherapy. The purpose of this article is therefore to provide an overview of the benefits of MRI in the evaluation and management of cervical cancer for both external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy and to provide a practical approach if access to MRI is limited. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 28 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 14% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 31 | 39% |
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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,303,950
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,678
of 2,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,940
of 397,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#47
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 397,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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.