| Title |
Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life: a review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-011-1390-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Babet H. C. Lamers, Bart M. W. Broekman, Alfredo L. Milani |
| Abstract |
Pessaries have been used to treat women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) since the beginning of recorded history. This review aims to assess the effect of pessary treatment on the disease-specific, health-related quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse. After a Medline search using the Mesh term 'pessary' and critical appraisal, 41 articles were selected and used in this review. Pessaries are widely used to treat pelvic organ prolapse. It is minimally invasive and appears to be safe. Although there is evidence that the use of pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse is effective in alleviating symptoms and that patient satisfaction is high, the follow-up in many published papers is short, and the use of validated urogynaecological questionnaires is limited. Comparison with surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse is rare and not assessed in a randomised controlled trial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Nepal | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 147 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 15% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 19% |
| Unknown | 46 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Engineering | 5 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 2% |
| Psychology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 47 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,759,600
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#350
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,803
of 120,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 120,383 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.