↓ 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, October 2018
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
201 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
424 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
861 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, October 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005654.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chantale Dumoulin, Licia P Cacciari, E Jean C Hay-Smith

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 201 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 861 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 861 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 120 14%
Student > Master 97 11%
Other 56 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 6%
Researcher 45 5%
Other 125 15%
Unknown 368 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 170 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 164 19%
Sports and Recreations 24 3%
Social Sciences 24 3%
Psychology 18 2%
Other 75 9%
Unknown 386 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 294. 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 22 February 2024.
All research outputs
#118,359
of 25,393,455 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#217
of 12,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,332
of 351,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 351,400 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 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 99% of its contemporaries.