↓ Skip to main content

Feedback or biofeedback to augment pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
345 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Feedback or biofeedback to augment pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009252
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roselien Herderschee, E. Jean C. Hay-Smith, G Peter Herbison, Jan Paul Roovers, Maas Jan Heineman

Abstract

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is an effective treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women. Whilst most of the PFMT trials have been done in women with stress urinary incontinence, there is also some trial evidence that PFMT is effective for urgency urinary incontinence and mixed urinary incontinence. Feedback or biofeedback are common adjuncts used along with PFMT to help teach a voluntary pelvic floor muscle contraction or to improve training performance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 340 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 16%
Student > Bachelor 50 14%
Researcher 42 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 10%
Other 33 10%
Other 80 23%
Unknown 48 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 6%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Engineering 11 3%
Other 50 14%
Unknown 58 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#947,208
of 14,045,330 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,873
of 10,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,554
of 188,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,045,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 188,103 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 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 73% of its contemporaries.