↓ 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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
98 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 98 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 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 24 24%

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
#3,701,635
of 15,411,033 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,189
of 11,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,898
of 151,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,411,033 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 11,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 151,669 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 77% 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.