↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Pelvic floor muscle training added to another active treatment versus the same active treatment alone for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010551.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke, E. Jean C Hay‐Smith, Muhammad Imran Omar

Abstract

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is a first-line conservative treatment for urinary incontinence in women. Other active treatments include: physical therapies (e.g. vaginal cones); behavioural therapies (e.g. bladder training); electrical or magnetic stimulation; mechanical devices (e.g. continence pessaries); drug therapies (e.g. anticholinergics (solifenacin, oxybutynin, etc.) and duloxetine); and surgical interventions including sling procedures and colposuspension. This systematic review evaluated the effects of adding PFMT to any other active treatment for urinary incontinence in women

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 119 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 13 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 32 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Psychology 6 5%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 34 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,689,246
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,606
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,211
of 315,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#74
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 315,855 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 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 68% of its contemporaries.