| Title |
The role of the multidisciplinary team in the management of deep infiltrating endometriosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gynecological Surgery, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s10397-017-1018-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lilian Ugwumadu, Rima Chakrabarti, Elaine Williams-Brown, John Rendle, Ian Swift, Babbin John, Heather Allen-Coward, Emmanuel Ofuasia |
| Abstract |
The multidisciplinary team (MDT) is considered good practice in the management of chronic conditions and is now a well-established part of clinical care in the NHS. There has been a recent drive to have MDTs in the management of women with severe endometriosis requiring complex surgery as a result of recommendations from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE). The multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with endometriosis leads to better results in patient outcomes; however, there are potentially a number of barriers to its implementation and maintenance. This paper aims to review the potential benefits, disadvantages and barriers of the multidisciplinary team in the management of severe endometriosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 15% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 36 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,647,515
of 24,466,750 outputs
Outputs from Gynecological Surgery
#4
of 165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,539
of 320,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gynecological Surgery
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,466,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 165 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 320,627 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.