| Title |
Diagnosing pubovisceral avulsions: a systematic review of the clinical relevance of a prevalent anatomical defect
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-012-1805-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karin Lammers, Jurgen J. Fütterer, Mathias Prokop, Mark E. Vierhout, Kirsten B. Kluivers |
| Abstract |
The aims of this systematic literature review were to assess whether the detection of pubovisceral avulsions using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging or perineal ultrasonography was clinically relevant in women with pelvic floor dysfunction and to evaluate the relation with anatomy, symptoms, and recurrence after surgery. We performed a systematic literature review using three bibliographical databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) as data sources. Clinical studies were included in which pubovisceral avulsions were studied in relation to pelvic organ prolapse (POP) stage, pelvic floor symptoms, and/or recurrence of POP after surgery. Ultimately, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. POP stage and recurrence of POP after surgery were strongly associated with pubovisceral avulsions. Contradictory results were found regarding the relation between pubovisceral avulsions and urinary symptoms and symptoms of anorectal dysfunction. Pubovisceral avulsions, as diagnosed by MR imaging or perineal ultrasonography, are associated with higher stages of POP and recurrence of POP after surgery. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 36% |
| Engineering | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
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 21 July 2013.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#2,726
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,581
of 176,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#53
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 176,574 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 56 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.