↓ Skip to main content

Urinary diversion and bladder reconstruction/replacement using intestinal segments for intractable incontinence or following cystectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Urinary diversion and bladder reconstruction/replacement using intestinal segments for intractable incontinence or following cystectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003306.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

June D Cody, Ghulam Nabi, Norman Dublin, Samuel McClinton, David E Neal, Robert Pickard, Sze M Yong

Abstract

Surgery performed to improve or replace the function of the diseased urinary bladder has been carried out for over a century. Main reasons for improving or replacing the function of the urinary bladder are bladder cancer, neurogenic bladder dysfunction, detrusor overactivity and chronic inflammatory diseases of the bladder (such as interstitial cystitis, tuberculosis and schistosomiasis). There is still much uncertainty about the best surgical approach. Options available at the present time include: (1) conduit diversion (the creation of various intestinal conduits to the skin) or continent diversion (which includes either a rectal reservoir or continent cutaneous diversion), (2) bladder reconstruction and (3) replacement of the bladder with various intestinal segments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 111 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 20%
Other 17 15%
Researcher 14 12%
Professor 11 9%
Unspecified 9 8%
Other 42 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 50%
Unspecified 11 9%
Computer Science 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 24 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#7,070,140
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,218
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,122
of 117,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 117,487 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.