↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Perianal injectable bulking agents as treatment for faecal incontinence in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
Title
Perianal injectable bulking agents as treatment for faecal incontinence in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007959.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuko Maeda, Søren Laurberg, Christine Norton

Abstract

Faecal incontinence is a complex and distressing condition with significant medical and social implications. Injection of perianal bulking agents has been used to treat the symptoms of passive faecal incontinence. However, various agents have been used without a standardised technique and the supposed benefit of the treatment is largely anecdotal with a limited clinical research base.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 165 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 48 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Psychology 8 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 58 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,077,903
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,164
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,474
of 205,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 205,393 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.