| Title |
Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001756.pub6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Allyson Lipp, Christine Shaw, Karin Glavind |
| Abstract |
Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management, particularly when a woman does not want surgery or when she is considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment. |
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 | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 277 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 11% |
| Researcher | 26 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 55 | 20% |
| Unknown | 90 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 79 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 10% |
| Psychology | 11 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 4% |
| Engineering | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 40 | 14% |
| Unknown | 103 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,676,341
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,591
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,195
of 348,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 348,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.