↓ Skip to main content

Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008306.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laercio A Silva, Régis B Andriolo, Álvaro N Atallah, Edina MK da Silva

Abstract

Incontinence after prostatectomy for benign or malignant disease is a well-known and often a feared outcome. Although small degrees of incidental incontinence may go virtually unnoticed, larger degrees of incontinence can have a major impact on a man's quality of life.Conceptually, post-prostatectomy incontinence may be caused by sphincter malfunction or bladder dysfunction, or both. Most men with post-prostatectomy incontinence (60% to 100%) have stress urinary incontinence, which is involuntary urinary leakage on effort or exertion, or on sneezing or coughing. This may be due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency and may be treated with surgery for optimal management of incontinence. Detrusor dysfunction is more common after surgery for benign prostatic disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 125 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Unspecified 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 16 12%
Other 44 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 53%
Unspecified 26 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Psychology 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 12 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,053,295
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,411
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,688
of 213,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 213,022 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.