↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Pelvic vein incompetence: clinical perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Pelvic vein incompetence: clinical perspectives
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s132827
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M Riding, Vivak Hansrani, Charles McCollum

Abstract

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects 24% of premenopausal women, accounts for 20%-30% of UK gynecology outpatient appointments, and has an annual pan-European economic cost of €3.8 billion. Despite extensive investigation, often including laparoscopy, up to 55% of women do not receive a diagnosis and endure persistent symptoms. In these patients, clinical management focuses on symptom control rather than treatment. It is possible that pelvic vein incompetence (PVI) is a cause of CPP, although the quality of studies investigating an association is generally low. PVI may develop during and after pregnancy, as uterine blood flow increases significantly, pushing venous valve leaflets apart, and enabling retrograde venous flow. Analogies with varicose veins of the lower limb are helpful, and symptoms are similar. Women with symptomatic PVI report a dull pelvic ache that is worse on standing and sitting and persists throughout the day. It can be relieved by lying down. Early treatments for PVI included laparoscopic ligation; however, since the advent of endovascular occlusive techniques, treatments have lower risk and lower cost, and can be undertaken without sedation or anesthetic. However, there have been no high-quality randomized controlled trials of interventions and, therefore, the evidence is limited to single-center case series.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 26%
Other 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 January 2018.
All research outputs
#10,968,712
of 12,372,610 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#478
of 530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,278
of 352,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 530 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 352,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.