↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) efficacy in the treatment of lower urinary tract dysfunctions: a systematic review

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 740)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 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
Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) efficacy in the treatment of lower urinary tract dysfunctions: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Urology, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2490-13-61
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriele Gaziev, Luca Topazio, Valerio Iacovelli, Anastasios Asimakopoulos, Angelo Di Santo, Cosimo De Nunzio, Enrico Finazzi-Agrò

Abstract

Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS) has been proposed for the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome (OAB), non-obstructive urinary retention (NOUR), neurogenic bladder, paediatric voiding dysfunction and chronic pelvic pain/painful bladder syndrome (CPP/PBS). Despite a number of publications produced in the last ten years, the role of PTNS in urinary tract dysfunctions remains unclear. A systematic review of the papers on PTNS has been performed with the aim to better clarify potentialities and limits of this technique in the treatment of OAB syndrome and in other above mentioned urological conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 236 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 13%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Other 20 8%
Student > Postgraduate 19 8%
Other 60 25%
Unknown 60 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 10%
Engineering 16 7%
Neuroscience 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 66 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 11 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,010,629
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Urology
#15
of 740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,928
of 303,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Urology
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 740 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 303,867 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 16 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 99% of its contemporaries.