↓ Skip to main content

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
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
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003401.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott W Simmons, Neda Taghizadeh, Alicia T Dennis, Damien Hughes, Allan M Cyna

Abstract

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 222 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 17%
Researcher 34 15%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Student > Postgraduate 21 9%
Other 58 25%
Unknown 26 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 11%
Psychology 18 8%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 32 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 January 2013.
All research outputs
#7,554,522
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,591
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,333
of 139,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 139,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.