↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

Overview of attention for article published in this source, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004906.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dodd, Jodie M, Crowther, Caroline A, Grivell, Rosalie M, Deussen, Andrea R

Abstract

When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy there are two options for her care, an elective repeat caesarean or planned induction of labour. While there are risks and benefits for both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently any conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Unknown 10 19%