↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009407.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evangelia Bakali, Eugenie Johnson, Brian S Buckley, Paul Hilton, Ben Walker, Douglas G Tincello

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 13 11%
Other 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 39 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 42 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 21 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,293,860
of 18,702,874 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,214
of 11,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,298
of 274,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,702,874 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 274,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.