| Title |
Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009107.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheena Derry, Sebastian Straube, R Andrew Moore, Heather Hancock, Sally L Collins |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 | 11 | 28% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 10% |
| United States | 3 | 8% |
| Sweden | 2 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 10% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 382 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 378 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 48 | 13% |
| Researcher | 42 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 6% |
| Other | 84 | 22% |
| Unknown | 104 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 119 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 63 | 16% |
| Psychology | 25 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 34 | 9% |
| Unknown | 113 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,282,513
of 25,613,746 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,696
of 13,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,197
of 252,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,613,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 252,584 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.