↓ Skip to main content

Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 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
Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008797.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying C Cheong, Grisham Smotra, Amanda C de C Williams

Abstract

Chronic pelvic pain is a common and debilitating condition; its aetiology is multifactorial, involving social, psychological and biological factors. The management of chronic pelvic pain is challenging, as despite interventions involving surgery, many women remain in pain without a firm gynaecological diagnosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 231 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 15%
Student > Master 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 15%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 10%
Other 77 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Unspecified 23 10%
Psychology 21 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Other 28 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,211,565
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,453
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,726
of 187,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#84
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 187,383 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.