| Title |
Transurethral radiofrequency collagen denaturation for the treatment of women with urinary incontinence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010217.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diana Kang, Julia Han, Molly M Neuberger, M. Louis Moy, Sheila A Wallace, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Philipp Dahm |
| Abstract |
Transurethral radiofrequency collagen denaturation is a relatively novel, minimally invasive device-based intervention used to treat individuals with urinary incontinence (UI). No systematic review of the evidence supporting its use has been published to date. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 196 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 37 | 19% |
| Unknown | 62 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Unknown | 76 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 March 2015.
All research outputs
#17,348,622
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,493
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,615
of 291,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#237
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 291,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.