| Title |
Weighted vaginal cones for urinary incontinence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002114.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G Peter Herbison, Nicola Dean |
| Abstract |
For a long time pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) has been the most common form of conservative (non-surgical) treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Weighted vaginal cones can be used to help women to train their pelvic floor muscles. Cones are inserted into the vagina and the pelvic floor is contracted to prevent them from slipping out. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 2 | 50% |
| Colombia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 298 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 55 | 18% |
| Unknown | 85 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 85 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 68 | 23% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 4% |
| Psychology | 9 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 28 | 9% |
| Unknown | 92 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 16 September 2023.
All research outputs
#562,161
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#997
of 13,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,065
of 206,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. 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 206,787 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.