↓ Skip to main content

Absorbent products for moderate-heavy urinary and/or faecal incontinence in women and men

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Absorbent products for moderate-heavy urinary and/or faecal incontinence in women and men
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007408
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mandy Fader, Alan M Cottenden, Kathryn Getliffe

Abstract

Incontinence is a common and embarrassing problem which has a profound effect on social and psychological well-being. Many people wear absorbent products to contain urine and/or faeces and protect their clothes and dignity. Users of absorbent pads are very diverse, including younger women, particularly those who have had children, older men with prostate disease, people with neurological conditions and older people with mobility and mental impairment. Whilst small absorbent pads for light incontinence are adequate for some users with low volumes of urine loss, for others with higher volumes more absorbent products are needed. A practical definition of moderate-heavy incontinence is urine or faecal loss that requires a large absorbent pad (typically with a total absorbent capacity of 2000 g to 3000 g) for containment. To assess the effectiveness of the different types of absorbent product designed for moderate-heavy incontinence. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register for trials carried out between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2008 (searched 7 February 2008), and the reference lists of relevant articles. Absorbent pads are subject to frequent modification by manufacturers and trials more than 10 years old were therefore not included in this review. All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of absorbent products for moderate-heavy incontinence. Two review authors assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible studies and independently extracted data from the included trials. Two studies with a total of 185 participants met the selection criteria. These trials studied all the absorbent product designs included in this review. One trial took place in nursing homes, the other in people's own homes. Gender was found to be a significant variable in both trials, and accordingly the results were analysed in gender groups. Data were presented on all included outcomes, except for quality of life.The results show that there is no single best design (i.e. one design that is significantly better than all other designs and for all users). Of the disposable designs, the more expensive pull-up and T-shaped diaper designs were not better overall than the diaper for men, but the diaper was better than the insert (the cheapest), making the diaper the most cost-effective disposable design for men both day and night. For women, disposable pull-ups were better overall than the other designs (except for those living in nursing homes when disposable diapers are better when used at night), but they are expensive. Unlike men, women in the community did not favour diapers (or T-shape diapers) and insert pads are therefore the most cost-effective alternative. Washable diapers are the least expensive design but are unacceptable to most women at any time. However, some people (particularly men living at home) prefer them at night and for them they are a cost-effective design.No firm conclusions could be drawn about the performance of designs for faecal incontinence and there was no firm evidence that there are differences in skin health between designs. Although data were available from only two eligible trials the data were sufficiently robust to make some recommendations for practice. There is evidence that different designs are better for men and women. Diapers are the most cost-effective disposable design for men. Disposable pull-ups are most preferred for women but are expensive: disposable inserts are a cheaper alternative (except in nursing homes where diapers are preferred to inserts at night). Washable diapers are the cheapest design but have limited acceptability, confined mainly to some men at night. There were not enough people in the trials to draw any conclusions about which designs are best for faecal incontinence and no particular design seemed to be better or worse for skin health. People have different preferences for absorbent product designs and using a combination (different designs for day/night, going out/staying in) may be more effective and less expensive than using one design all the time.

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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 31%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Unspecified 5 7%
Other 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Unspecified 9 13%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 11 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,569,010
of 12,974,522 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,539
of 10,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,251
of 269,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,974,522 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 269,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.