↓ Skip to main content

Management of Pelvic Floor Disorders: Biofeedback and More

Overview of attention for article published in Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Management of Pelvic Floor Disorders: Biofeedback and More
Published in
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11938-014-0033-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Prichard, Adil E. Bharucha

Abstract

Defecatory disorders (DD) and fecal incontinence (FI) are common conditions. DD are primarily attributable to impaired rectoanal function during defecation or structural defects. FI is caused by one or more disturbances of anorectal continence mechanisms. Altered stool consistency may be the primary cause or may unmask anorectal deficits in both conditions. Diagnosis and management requires a systematic approach beginning with a thorough clinical assessment. Symptoms do not reliably differentiate a DD from other causes of constipation such as slow or normal transit constipation. Therefore, all constipated patients who do not adequately respond to medical therapy should be considered for anorectal testing to identify a DD. Preferably, two tests indicating impaired defecation are required to diagnose a DD. Patients with DD, or those for whom testing is not available and the clinical suspicion is high, should be referred for biofeedback-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Patients with FI should be managed with lifestyle modifications, pharmacotherapy for bowel disturbances, and management of local anorectal problems (e.g., hemorrhoids). When these measures are not beneficial, anorectal testing and pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy should be considered. Sacral nerve stimulation or perianal bulking could be considered in patients who have persistent symptoms despite optimal management of bowel disturbances and pelvic floor retraining.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Unspecified 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Design 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,786,597
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#158
of 266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,811
of 253,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 253,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.