| Title |
Can major systematic reviews influence practice patterns? A case study of episiotomy trends
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-013-2904-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yu-Chu Shen, Wee Chung Sim, Aaron B. Caughey, David H. Howard |
| Abstract |
Episiotomy is one of the most commonly performed procedures among women of childbearing age in the United States. In 2005, a major systematic review conducted by Hartmann and colleagues recommended against routine use of episiotomy and was widely covered in the media. We assessed the impact of the Hartman et al. study on episiotomy trend. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
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 18 June 2013.
All research outputs
#16,049,105
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#1,196
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,436
of 199,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 199,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.