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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Current status: new technologies for the treatment of patients with fecal incontinence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-014-3464-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas M. Kaiser, Guy R. Orangio, Massarat Zutshi, Suraj Alva, Tracy L. Hull, Peter W. Marcello, David A. Margolin, Janice F. Rafferty, W. Donald Buie, Steven D. Wexner |
| Abstract |
Fecal incontinence is a frequent and debilitating condition that may result from a multitude of different causes. Treatment is often challenging and needs to be individualized. During the last several years, new technologies have been developed, and others are emerging from clinical trials to commercialization. Although their specific roles in the management of fecal incontinence have not yet been completely defined, surgeons have access to them and patients may request them. The purpose of this project is to put into perspective, for both the patient and the practitioner, the relative positions of new and emerging technologies in order to propose a treatment algorithm. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 29% |
| Italy | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 25% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 49% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,342,075
of 23,321,213 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,599
of 6,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,512
of 222,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#41
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,321,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,178 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 222,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.