↓ 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 (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
251 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
447 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

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 251 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 447 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 447 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 70 16%
Student > Master 68 15%
Other 41 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 8%
Researcher 33 7%
Other 78 17%
Unknown 123 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 108 24%
Social Sciences 19 4%
Sports and Recreations 12 3%
Psychology 10 2%
Other 43 10%
Unknown 140 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 253. 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 27 March 2021.
All research outputs
#78,166
of 17,634,657 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 11,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,180
of 283,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,634,657 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 11,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. 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 283,875 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 114 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 98% of its contemporaries.