| Title |
Pelvic floor muscle training for preventing and treating urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007471.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie J Woodley, Peter Lawrenson, Rhianon Boyle, June D Cody, Siv Mørkved, Ashleigh Kernohan, E Jean C Hay-Smith |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 18 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 17 | 18% |
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 4 | 4% |
| Spain | 4 | 4% |
| France | 4 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Latvia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 34 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 77 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 6% |
| Scientists | 6 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 979 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 976 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 113 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 93 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 61 | 6% |
| Researcher | 56 | 6% |
| Other | 45 | 5% |
| Other | 171 | 17% |
| Unknown | 440 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 180 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 175 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 45 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 28 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 2% |
| Other | 79 | 8% |
| Unknown | 456 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 127. 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 08 April 2024.
All research outputs
#333,506
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#559
of 13,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,892
of 417,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 417,668 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 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 91% of its contemporaries.