↓ 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
387 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 13 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 387 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%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 379 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 16%
Student > Bachelor 58 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 14%
Researcher 37 10%
Student > Postgraduate 29 7%
Other 84 22%
Unknown 65 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 12%
Psychology 27 7%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 3%
Other 44 11%
Unknown 71 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,098,003
of 17,180,396 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,808
of 11,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,063
of 194,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,180,396 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 194,416 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 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 56% of its contemporaries.