| Title |
Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009508 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Jean C Hay-Smith, Roselien Herderschee, Chantale Dumoulin, G Peter Herbison |
| Abstract |
Pelvic floor muscle training is the most commonly recommended physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence. It is also sometimes recommended for mixed and, less commonly, urge urinary incontinence. The supervision and content of pelvic floor muscle training programmes are highly variable, and some programmes use additional strategies in an effort to increase adherence or training effects. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Norway | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 435 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 432 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 68 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 64 | 15% |
| Researcher | 41 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 7% |
| Other | 78 | 18% |
| Unknown | 123 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 126 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 85 | 20% |
| Psychology | 19 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 18 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 41 | 9% |
| Unknown | 135 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 16 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,318,637
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,017
of 12,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,826
of 244,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#36
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,749 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 244,853 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.