↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
281 Mendeley
Title
Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001756.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allyson Lipp, Christine Shaw, Karin Glavind

Abstract

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management, particularly when a woman does not want surgery or when she is considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 281 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Master 31 11%
Researcher 26 9%
Other 21 7%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 51 18%
Unknown 98 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 10%
Psychology 11 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 41 15%
Unknown 111 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,676,341
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,591
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,195
of 348,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 348,020 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.