| Title |
Epidural versus non‐epidural or no analgesia in labour
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000331.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Millicent Anim‐Somuah, Rebecca MD Smyth, Leanne Jones |
| Abstract |
Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns regarding unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 States | 6 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 20% |
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 4% |
| Austria | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 16% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 355 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 343 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 50 | 14% |
| Researcher | 39 | 11% |
| Other | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 8% |
| Other | 87 | 25% |
| Unknown | 61 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 183 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 46 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 5% |
| Psychology | 13 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 24 | 7% |
| Unknown | 64 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 152. 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 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#271,763
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#455
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,291
of 247,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 247,349 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 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 98% of its contemporaries.