↓ Skip to main content

A Randomized Trial of Urodynamic Testing before Stress-Incontinence Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, May 2012
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 (97th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
33 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
392 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
A Randomized Trial of Urodynamic Testing before Stress-Incontinence Surgery
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, May 2012
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1113595
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles W Nager, Linda Brubaker, Heather J Litman, Halina M Zyczynski, R Edward Varner, Cindy Amundsen, Larry T Sirls, Peggy A Norton, Amy M Arisco, Toby C Chai, Philippe Zimmern, Matthew D Barber, Kimberly J Dandreo, Shawn A Menefee, Kimberly Kenton, Jerry Lowder, Holly E Richter, Salil Khandwala, Ingrid Nygaard, Stephen R Kraus, Harry W Johnson, Gary E Lemack, Marina Mihova, Michael E Albo, Elizabeth Mueller, Gary Sutkin, Tracey S Wilson, Yvonne Hsu, Thomas A Rozanski, Leslie M Rickey, David Rahn, Sharon Tennstedt, John W Kusek, E Ann Gormley

Abstract

Urodynamic studies are commonly performed in women before surgery for stress urinary incontinence, but there is no good evidence that they improve outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
United States 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 131 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 12%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Professor 8 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 59 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 2 1%
Sports and Recreations 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 61 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 06 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,028,187
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#9,776
of 32,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,224
of 175,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#110
of 287 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 32,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 175,789 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 287 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.