The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 |
Management of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002115.pub5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maureen Coggrave, Christine Norton, June D Cody |
| Abstract |
People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with any management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003 and 2006. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 686 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 675 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 116 | 17% |
| Researcher | 82 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 74 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 8% |
| Other | 41 | 6% |
| Other | 122 | 18% |
| Unknown | 196 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 190 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 125 | 18% |
| Psychology | 40 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 23 | 3% |
| Other | 76 | 11% |
| Unknown | 209 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 31 May 2024.
All research outputs
#1,104,080
of 26,018,952 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,115
of 13,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,664
of 322,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,018,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 322,855 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.