↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Feedback or biofeedback to augment pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
174 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
533 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Feedback or biofeedback to augment pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009252
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roselien Herderschee, E. Jean C. Hay‐Smith, G Peter Herbison, Jan Paul Roovers, Maas Jan Heineman

Abstract

Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is an effective treatment for stress urinary incontinence in women. Whilst most of the PFMT trials have been done in women with stress urinary incontinence, there is also some trial evidence that PFMT is effective for urgency urinary incontinence and mixed urinary incontinence. Feedback or biofeedback are common adjuncts used along with PFMT to help teach a voluntary pelvic floor muscle contraction or to improve training performance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 533 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 528 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 13%
Student > Bachelor 63 12%
Researcher 50 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 9%
Other 42 8%
Other 101 19%
Unknown 161 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 167 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 4%
Psychology 18 3%
Social Sciences 15 3%
Other 69 13%
Unknown 172 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,330,352
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,825
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,528
of 127,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 127,806 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.