↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

New developments in the management of overactive bladder: focus on mirabegron and onabotulinumtoxinA

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
New developments in the management of overactive bladder: focus on mirabegron and onabotulinumtoxinA
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2013
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s33052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karl-Erik Andersson

Abstract

In the last few years, much new information has been generated on the pathophysiology, possible therapeutic targets, and pharmacologic treatment of overactive bladder (OAB). Antimuscarinic drugs are still first-line pharmacologic treatment for OAB and often have good initial response rates, but adverse effects and decreasing efficacy cause long-term compliance problems, prompting a search for new therapeutic alternatives. Mirabegron and onabotulinumtoxinA, two drugs with different mechanisms of action, and with adverse effect profiles different from those of antimuscarinics, were recently approved for treatment of OAB. However, their place in the treatment of this disorder has not yet been established. In this short review, the mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy, and safety profiles of these drugs are discussed and compared with those of the current gold standard, antimuscarinic agents.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 31 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 21%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#379
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,896
of 212,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 212,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.