↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
25 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
guideline
5 clinical guideline sources
podcasts
2 podcasts

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation Versus Sham Efficacy in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome: Results From the SUmiT Trial
Published in
The Journal of Urology, February 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.036
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Study of Urgent PC vs Sham Effectiveness in Treatment of Overactive Bladder Symptoms (SUmiT) was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation to sham through 12 weeks of therapy. The improvement in global response assessment, voiding diary parameters, and overactive bladder and quality of life questionnaires was evaluated.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 279 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 15%
Student > Master 33 12%
Other 26 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Other 61 21%
Unknown 81 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Engineering 19 7%
Neuroscience 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 15 5%
Unknown 93 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 21 July 2026.
All research outputs
#1,110,373
of 33,704,742 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Urology
#600
of 21,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,283
of 139,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Urology
#3
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,704,742 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 139,410 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 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 97% of its contemporaries.