↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
50 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
281 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 394 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 391 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 18%
Student > Bachelor 65 16%
Researcher 40 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 10%
Other 31 8%
Other 79 20%
Unknown 68 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 88 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 4%
Psychology 15 4%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Other 37 9%
Unknown 81 21%
Attention Score in Context

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
#556,765
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#989
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,862
of 242,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 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 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 242,218 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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 91% of its contemporaries.