↓ Skip to main content

Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009508
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Jean C Hay-Smith, Roselien Herderschee, Chantale Dumoulin, G Peter Herbison

Abstract

Pelvic floor muscle training is the most commonly recommended physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence. It is also sometimes recommended for mixed and, less commonly, urge urinary incontinence. The supervision and content of pelvic floor muscle training programmes are highly variable, and some programmes use additional strategies in an effort to increase adherence or training effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 230 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 47 20%
Student > Master 45 19%
Researcher 24 10%
Other 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 19 8%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 30 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 23%
Sports and Recreations 12 5%
Psychology 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 40 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#616,426
of 12,858,386 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,071
of 10,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,965
of 213,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 549 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,858,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 213,305 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 549 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.