↓ Skip to main content

Integrative review on the non‐invasive management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men following treatments for pelvic malignancies

Overview of attention for article published in International journal of clinical practice, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Integrative review on the non‐invasive management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men following treatments for pelvic malignancies
Published in
International journal of clinical practice, August 2015
DOI 10.1111/ijcp.12693
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To develop a non-invasive management strategy for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after treatment for pelvic cancer, that is suitable for use in a primary healthcare context. PubMed literature searches of LUTS management in this patient group were carried out, together with obtaining a consensus of management strategies from a panel of authors for the management of LUTS from across the UK. Data from 41 articles were investigated and collated. Clinical experience was sought from authors where there was no clinical evidence. The findings discussed in this paper confirm that LUTS after the cancer treatment can significantly impair men's quality of life. While many men recover from LUTS spontaneously over time, a significant proportion require long-term management. Despite the prevalence of LUTS, there is a lack of consensus on best management. This article offers a comprehensive treatment algorithm to manage patients with LUTS following pelvic cancer treatment. Based on published research literature and clinical experience, recommendations are proposed for the standardisation of management strategies employed for men with LUTS after the pelvic cancer treatment. In addition to implementing the algorithm, understanding the rationale for the type and timing of LUTS management strategies is crucial for clinicians and patients.

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 profiles of 20 X users 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 63 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 %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 20 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,778,377
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from International journal of clinical practice
#386
of 3,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,569
of 302,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International journal of clinical practice
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 302,602 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.