| Title |
Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004224.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Erasmo Huertas, Jeanne‐Marie Guise, Dell Horey |
| Abstract |
When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth, there are two options for her care in a subsequent pregnancy: planned elective repeat caesarean or planned vaginal birth. While there are risks and benefits for both planned elective repeat caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 44% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Brazil | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 388 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 379 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 81 | 21% |
| Researcher | 44 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 34 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 7% |
| Other | 69 | 18% |
| Unknown | 91 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 189 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 4% |
| Psychology | 11 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 6% |
| Unknown | 102 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,127,798
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,620
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,173
of 321,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#123
of 229 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 83rd 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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 321,201 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.