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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The surgical anatomy of rectocele and anterior rectal wall intussusception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, December 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-007-0513-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. Abendstein, P. E. P. Petros, P. A. Richardson, K. Goeschen, D. Dodero |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to analyse the dynamic anatomical supports of the posterior vaginal wall from the perspective of rectocele and rectal intussusception repair. Two groups of patients were studied. Group 1 (n = 24) with genuine stress incontinence but no major vault prolapse had vagino/proctomyograms and transperineal ultrasound examinations. Group 2 with vaginal vault prolapse, clinical rectoceles and obstructive defecation symptoms (n = 19 had single-contrast defecating proctography before and after posterior-sling surgery. The posterior vaginal wall is suspended between perineal body, which underlies half its length, and uterosacral ligaments, which also support the anterior wall of rectum. Muscle forces stretch the vagina and rectum against the perineal body and uterosacral ligaments, creating shape and strength, like a suspension bridge. Postoperative proctogram studies indicated that anterior rectal wall intussusception has the same etiology as rectocele, deficient recto-vaginal ligamentous support. Repair to uterosacral ligaments and perineal body should be considered with large rectoceles, anterior rectal wall intussusception and obstructive defecation disorders. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 64% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 August 2019.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#888
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,482
of 166,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 166,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.