↓ Skip to main content

Fundal pressure versus controlled cord traction as part of the active management of the third stage of labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Fundal pressure versus controlled cord traction as part of the active management of the third stage of labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005462.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guiomar E Peña-Martí, Gabriella Comunián-Carrasco

Abstract

There are two basic interventions to help to deliver the placenta as part of the active management of the third stage of labour: (1) fundal pressure, and (2) controlled traction on the umbilical cord. Both of these methods may, in addition, have adverse outcomes. Fundal pressure may interrupt the process of placental detachment and cause pain, haemorrhage or uterine inversion, and controlled cord traction, if undertaken before placental separation or without prior administration of a uterotonic drug, may have similar adverse effects. The obstetric clinical practice on this issue is not standardised. To determine the efficacy of fundal pressure versus controlled cord traction as part of the active management of the third stage of labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2006), EMBASE (January 1988 to April 2006) and LILACS (1982 to April 2006). We searched for published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. Two review authors independently identified potential studies from the literature search and assessed them for methodological quality and appropriateness of inclusion. The search strategies yielded five studies for consideration of inclusion. However, none of these studies fulfilled the requirements for inclusion in this review. We identified no randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of fundal pressure versus controlled cord traction as part of the active management of the third stage of labour. Hence controlled cord traction, after awaiting signs of placental separation, should remain the third component of the active management of third stage of labour, and follow the routine administration of a uterotonic drug and cord clamping.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Spain 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 60 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Unspecified 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,551,362
of 15,115,606 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,361
of 11,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,165
of 152,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,115,606 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 152,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.