↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001756.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allyson Lipp, Christine Shaw, Karin Glavind

Abstract

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management, particularly when a woman does not want surgery or when she is considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 21%
Student > Master 20 17%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Other 11 9%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 23 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,882,854
of 12,662,942 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,626
of 10,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,690
of 290,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#131
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,662,942 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 290,415 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.