| Title |
Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008797.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ying C Cheong, Grisham Smotra, Amanda C de C Williams |
| Abstract |
Chronic pelvic pain is a common and debilitating condition; its aetiology is multifactorial, involving social, psychological and biological factors. The management of chronic pelvic pain is challenging, as despite interventions involving surgery, many women remain in pain without a firm gynaecological diagnosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 472 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 72 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 64 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 11% |
| Researcher | 41 | 9% |
| Other | 29 | 6% |
| Other | 79 | 17% |
| Unknown | 141 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 185 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 51 | 11% |
| Psychology | 34 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 8% |
| Unknown | 146 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,273,786
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,065
of 12,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,649
of 222,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 222,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 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 51% of its contemporaries.