↓ Skip to main content

Perianal injectable bulking agents as treatment for faecal incontinence in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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.
Title
Perianal injectable bulking agents as treatment for faecal incontinence in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007959.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuko Maeda, Søren Laurberg, Christine Norton

Abstract

Faecal incontinence is a complex and distressing condition with significant medical and social implications. Injection of perianal bulking agents has been used to treat the symptoms of passive faecal incontinence. However, various agents have been used without a standardised technique and the supposed benefit of the treatment is largely anecdotal with a limited clinical research base.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 116 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 6 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 30 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,276,544
of 17,347,018 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,643
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,374
of 158,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,347,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 158,239 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.