↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Weighted vaginal cones for urinary incontinence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 Mendeley
Title
Weighted vaginal cones for urinary incontinence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002114.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

G Peter Herbison, Nicola Dean

Abstract

For a long time pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) has been the most common form of conservative (non-surgical) treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Weighted vaginal cones can be used to help women to train their pelvic floor muscles. Cones are inserted into the vagina and the pelvic floor is contracted to prevent them from slipping out.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 257 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 18%
Student > Master 42 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Other 16 6%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 53 21%
Unknown 60 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 22%
Sports and Recreations 11 4%
Psychology 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 66 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 16 October 2021.
All research outputs
#452,797
of 21,347,686 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#911
of 12,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,843
of 179,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,686 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 179,923 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 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.