The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| 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
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 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 | 174 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Researcher | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 19% |
| Unknown | 54 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 11% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Unknown | 64 | 36% |
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 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,538,959
of 25,878,862 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,940
of 13,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,852
of 206,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#137
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,878,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 206,097 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 69% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.