↓ Skip to main content

Voiding Dysfunction Associated with Pudendal Nerve Entrapment

Overview of attention for article published in Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 124)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Voiding Dysfunction Associated with Pudendal Nerve Entrapment
Published in
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11884-012-0156-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Possover, A. Forman

Abstract

Pudendal nerve entrapment (Alcock canal syndrome) is an uncommon source of chronic pelvic pain, in which the pudendal nerve is entrapped or compressed. Pain is located in the perineal, genital and perianal areas and is worsened by sitting. By simple entrapment of the PN without neurogenic damages, pain is usually isolated. In neurogenic damages to the PN, genito-anal numbness, fecal and/or urinary incontinence can occurred. PNE can be caused by obstetric traumas, scarring due to genitoanal surgeries (prolaps procedures!), accidents and surgical mishaps. Diagnosis is based on anamnesis, clinical examination including vaginal or rectal palpation of the pelvic nerves with selective nerve blockade. Pudendal pain non systematic mean PNE since other neuropathies may induce pudendal pain. So sacral radiculopathies (sacral nerves roots S#2-4) are underestimated etiologies frequently responsible for pudendal pain with irradiation in sacral dermatomes, bladder hypersensitivity or in neurogenic lesions, bladder retention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 15 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 February 2022.
All research outputs
#4,678,293
of 23,206,358 outputs
Outputs from Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports
#9
of 124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,767
of 173,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,206,358 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 173,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them