| Title |
Surgical interruption of pelvic nerve pathways for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001896.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Proctor, Pallavi Latthe, Cindy Farquhar, Khalid Khan, Neil Johnson |
| Abstract |
Dysmenorrhoea is the occurrence of painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin and is a very common gynaecological complaint with negative effect on a sufferer's quality of life. Medical therapy for dysmenorrhoea includes oral contraceptive pills (OCP) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) which both act by suppressing prostaglandin levels. While these treatments are very successful there is still a 20 to 25% failure rate and surgery has been an option for such cases. Uterine nerve ablation (UNA) and presacral neurectomy (PSN) are two surgical treatments that have become increasingly utilised in recent years due to advances in laparoscopic procedures. These procedures both interrupt the majority of the cervical sensory pain nerve fibres. Observational studies have supported the use of these procedures for primary dysmenorrhoea. However, both operations only partially interrupt the cervical sensory nerve fibres in the pelvic area and, therefore, this type of surgery may not always benefit women with dysmenorrhoea. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Lithuania | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 231 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 12% |
| Researcher | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 18% |
| Unknown | 68 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 105 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 10% |
| Psychology | 12 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Unknown | 72 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 June 2006.
All research outputs
#15,233,109
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,762
of 12,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,631
of 58,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 58,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.