↓ Skip to main content

Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004350.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bosede B Afolabi, Foluso EA Lesi

Abstract

Regional anaesthesia (RA) and general anaesthesia (GA) are commonly used for caesarean section (CS) and both have advantages and disadvantages. It is important to clarify what type of anaesthesia is more efficacious.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Unknown 210 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 16%
Student > Master 32 15%
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Postgraduate 28 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 31 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 11 5%
Unknown 37 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,028,015
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,677
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,899
of 155,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 155,851 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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.