↓ Skip to main content

Management of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
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 (80th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
326 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
Management of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002115.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maureen Coggrave, Christine Norton, June D Cody

Abstract

People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with any management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003 and 2006. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Spain 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 310 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 21%
Researcher 50 15%
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 10%
Unspecified 34 10%
Other 97 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 140 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 68 21%
Unspecified 35 11%
Psychology 28 9%
Neuroscience 14 4%
Other 41 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 08 December 2018.
All research outputs
#448,747
of 13,046,269 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,414
of 10,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,951
of 187,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,046,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 187,223 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 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.