↓ Skip to main content

Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, May 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
296 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
488 Mendeley
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.
Title
Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osama Muhammad Maria, Nicoletta Eliopoulos, Thierry Muanza

Abstract

Radiation-induced oral mucositis (RIOM) is a major dose-limiting toxicity in head and neck cancer patients. It is a normal tissue injury caused by radiation/radiotherapy (RT), which has marked adverse effects on patient quality of life and cancer therapy continuity. It is a challenge for radiation oncologists since it leads to cancer therapy interruption, poor local tumor control, and changes in dose fractionation. RIOM occurs in 100% of altered fractionation radiotherapy head and neck cancer patients. In the United Sates, its economic cost was estimated to reach 17,000.00 USD per patient with head and neck cancers. This review will discuss RIOM definition, epidemiology, impact and side effects, pathogenesis, scoring scales, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 488 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 488 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 63 13%
Student > Master 60 12%
Student > Postgraduate 38 8%
Other 31 6%
Researcher 29 6%
Other 87 18%
Unknown 180 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 161 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 2%
Other 48 10%
Unknown 192 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 12 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,646,117
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#644
of 22,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,418
of 327,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#9
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,741 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 327,885 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.