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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007372.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony J Kelly, Zarko Alfirevic, Arpita Ghosh |
| Abstract |
More than 20% of women undergo induction of labour in some countries. The different methods used to induce labour have been the focus of previous reviews, but the setting in which induction takes place (hospital versus outpatient settings) may have implications for maternal satisfaction and costs. It is not known whether some methods of induction that are effective and safe in hospital are suitable in outpatient settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 151 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 12% |
| Researcher | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 31 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,277,588
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,039
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,980
of 225,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#133
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 225,134 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.