↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 230 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 16%
Student > Master 26 11%
Researcher 22 10%
Other 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 70 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 12%
Psychology 10 4%
Engineering 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 80 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,503,168
of 22,532,627 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,475
of 12,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,137
of 308,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,532,627 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 12,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. 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 308,672 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 241 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 64% of its contemporaries.