↓ 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 (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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

Ayeleke RO, Hay-Smith EJ, Omar MI, Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke, E. Jean C Hay-Smith, Muhammad Imran Omar, Ayeleke, Reuben Olugbenga, Hay-Smith, E. Jean C, Omar, Muhammad Imran

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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 89 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Postgraduate 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Psychology 5 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 14 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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
#1,038,457
of 17,829,175 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,678
of 11,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,474
of 274,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,829,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 274,799 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 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.