| Title |
Clarification and confirmation of the Knack maneuver: the effect of volitional pelvic floor muscle contraction to preempt expected stress incontinence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, January 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-007-0525-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janis M. Miller, Carolyn Sampselle, James Ashton-Miller, Gwi-Ryung Son Hong, John O. L. DeLancey |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to determine the immediate effect of timing a pelvic muscle contraction with the moment of expected leakage (the Knack maneuver) to preempt cough-related stress incontinence. Women performed a standing stress test using three hard coughs without and then with the Knack maneuver. Volume of urine loss under both conditions was quantified with paper-towel test. Two groups of women were tested: nonpregnant women (n = 64) and pregnant women (n = 29). In nonpregnant women, wetted area decreased from a median (range) of 43.2 (0.2-183.7) cm2 without the Knack maneuver to 6.9 (range of 0 to 183.7 cm2) with it (p < 0.0001); while in pregnant women it decreased from 14.8 (0-169.7) cm2 to 0 (0-96.5) cm2, respectively (p = 0.001). This study confirms the effect from the Knack maneuver as immediate and provides a partial explanation for early response to widely applied pelvic muscle training regimens in women with stress incontinence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 18% |
| Unknown | 47 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 49 | 28% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Unknown | 51 | 29% |
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 10 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,522,539
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#155
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,518
of 167,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 167,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.