↓ Skip to main content

Repetitive periphere Muskelstimulation vs. Beckenbodentraining

Overview of attention for article published in Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Repetitive periphere Muskelstimulation vs. Beckenbodentraining
Published in
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00391-017-1238-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine Schrank, Laura Adlbrecht, Hanna Mayer

Abstract

Although there are various measures for the prevention, treatment, and management of urinary incontinence (UI), absorbing aids (and only scant continence-promoting measures) are primarily used in nursing homes in Austria. Repetitive peripheral muscle stimulation (RPMS) is already used as a common method for the treatment and prevention of incontinence in the outpatient setting and is an effective alternative compared to the usual incontinence treatments. However, there are no empirical data as yet on the effect of RPMS in nursing home residents. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and compare two forms of UI treatment: RPMS and pelvic floor muscle exercises. To this end, a non-equivalent control group design was used. For the purposes of data collection, standardized instruments were used at three points of measurement. The sample consisted of 112 people from 22 institutions. The severity of UI showed a trend, albeit non-significant, toward improvement in both groups. However, a greater increase in quality of life and subjective satisfaction with treatment was observed in the RPMS group compared with the pelvic floor group. Pelvic floor muscle exercises carried out in a consistent and well-guided manner show similar effects compared with technology-assisted therapies. While pelvic floor muscle exercises are feasible in only a small proportion of nursing home residents, RPMS training could be a useful adjunct to conservative incontinence treatment and is also suitable for cognitively impaired individuals. As such, a larger number of elderly individuals could gain access to an appropriate and effective incontinence therapy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Other 5 10%
Researcher 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Sports and Recreations 5 10%
Psychology 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,420,242
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#290
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,451
of 309,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 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 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 309,827 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 12 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.