↓ Skip to main content

Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010551.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayeleke RO, Hay-Smith EJ, Omar MI, Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke, E. Jean C Hay-Smith, Muhammad Imran Omar, Ayeleke, Reuben Olugbenga, Hay-Smith, E. Jean C, Omar, Muhammad Imran

Abstract

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a first-line conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in women. Other active treatments include: physical therapies (e.g. vaginal cones); behavioural therapies (e.g. bladder training); electrical or magnetic stimulation; mechanical devices (e.g. continence pessaries); drug therapies (e.g. anticholinergics (solifenacin, oxybutynin, etc.) and duloxetine); and surgical interventions including sling procedures and colposuspension. This systematic review evaluated the effects of adding PFMT to any other active treatment for urinary incontinence in women

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 3%
Student > Postgraduate 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Psychology 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#556,003
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,353
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,219
of 204,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 204,852 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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 90% of its contemporaries.