| Title |
Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005654.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chantale Dumoulin, E. Jean C Hay-Smith, Gabrielle Mac Habée-Séguin |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 14 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 12% |
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| Canada | 3 | 6% |
| Spain | 3 | 6% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Kenya | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 44 | 86% |
| Scientists | 3 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 382 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 71 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 65 | 17% |
| Researcher | 40 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 10% |
| Other | 31 | 8% |
| Other | 79 | 21% |
| Unknown | 60 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 148 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 88 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 4% |
| Psychology | 15 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 37 | 10% |
| Unknown | 73 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 16 May 2022.
All research outputs
#510,481
of 24,225,722 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#936
of 12,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,668
of 231,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,225,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 231,461 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.