| Title |
Urinary diversion and bladder reconstruction/replacement using intestinal segments for intractable incontinence or following cystectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003306.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
June D Cody, Ghulam Nabi, Norman Dublin, Samuel McClinton, David E Neal, Robert Pickard, Sze M Yong |
| Abstract |
Surgery performed to improve or replace the function of the diseased urinary bladder has been carried out for over a century. Main reasons for improving or replacing the function of the urinary bladder are bladder cancer, neurogenic bladder dysfunction, detrusor overactivity and chronic inflammatory diseases of the bladder (such as interstitial cystitis, tuberculosis and schistosomiasis). There is still much uncertainty about the best surgical approach. Options available at the present time include: (1) conduit diversion (the creation of various intestinal conduits to the skin) or continent diversion (which includes either a rectal reservoir or continent cutaneous diversion), (2) bladder reconstruction and (3) replacement of the bladder with various intestinal segments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 227 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 26 | 11% |
| Researcher | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 9% |
| Professor | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 58 | 25% |
| Unknown | 61 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 40% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 14% |
| Unknown | 68 | 29% |
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 20 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,125,075
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12,103
of 13,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,297
of 259,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#187
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 259,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.