↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence, incidence and remission of urinary incontinence in women: longitudinal data from the Norwegian HUNT study (EPINCONT)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Urology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevalence, incidence and remission of urinary incontinence in women: longitudinal data from the Norwegian HUNT study (EPINCONT)
Published in
BMC Urology, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2490-13-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marit Helen Ebbesen, Steinar Hunskaar, Guri Rortveit, Yngvild Skaatun Hannestad

Abstract

To determine incidence and remission of UI as well as changes in UI prevalence in the Norwegian EPINCONT surveys. The EPINCONT surveys were conducted in the county of Nord-Trøndelag, Norway, as part of two large cross-sectional health surveys (HUNT2 and HUNT3) in 1995 - 1997 (EPINCONT1 (E1)), and 2006 - 2008 (EPINCONT2 (E2)). EPINCONT collected information about prevalence of UI, as well as information about type and severity of UI. A 16% relative increase in UI prevalence was found in 11 years. The women who answered E2 were significantly older, had a higher BMI and higher prevalence of diseases such as asthma, diabetes and angina compared with the women who answered E1. Crude UI prevalence increased between the studies. Changes in known risk factors for UI such as age, BMI, weight and parity could explain some of the relative increase in prevalence, and were also found to be associated with either incidence of UI, remission of UI or both.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 122 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 22%
Student > Master 17 13%
Other 10 8%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 33 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 April 2015.
All research outputs
#5,306,841
of 21,346,872 outputs
Outputs from BMC Urology
#131
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,294
of 176,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Urology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,346,872 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 176,285 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them