| Title |
Functional pelvic floor anatomy in Nepali women attending a general gynaecology clinic
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-017-3534-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Friyan Turel, Delena Caagbay, Hans Peter Dietz |
| Abstract |
Limited existing evidence suggests that there is a high prevalence of female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) amongst Nepali women. However, to date, no comprehensive assessment of pelvic floor functional anatomy has been undertaken in this population. Our study aimed to determine functional pelvic floor anatomy in Nepali women attending a general gynaecology clinic. One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive women attending the clinic were offered an interview, clinical examination [International Continence Society Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (ICS/POP-Q)] and 4D translabial ultrasound (TLUS). Most presented with general gynaecological complaints. Five were excluded due to previous pelvic surgery, leaving 124. A POP-Q exam was possible in 123 women, of whom 29 (24%) were diagnosed with a significant cystocele, 50 (41%) significant uterine prolapse and seven (6%) significant posterior compartment prolapse. Evaluation of 4D TLUS data sets was possible in 120 women, of whom 25 (21%) had a significant cystocele, 45 (38%) significant uterine prolapse and ten (8%) significant descent of the rectal ampulla. In 13 cases, there was a rectocele with a mean depth of 14 (10-28) mm. Of 114 women in whom uterine position could be determined, 68 (60%) had a retroverted uterus associated with significant uterine prolapse (P 0.038). POP is common in Nepali women attending a general gynaecology clinic, with a high prevalence of uterine prolapse (40%). Uterine retroversion was seen in 60% and was associated with uterine prolapse. Patterns of POP in Nepal seem to be different from patterns observed in Western populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Researcher | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 60% |
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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#2,449
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#341,658
of 447,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#23
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 447,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.