↓ Skip to main content

Continuous and interrupted suturing techniques for repair of episiotomy or second-degree tears

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Continuous and interrupted suturing techniques for repair of episiotomy or second-degree tears
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000947.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Kettle, Therese Dowswell, Khaled MK Ismail

Abstract

Millions of women worldwide undergo perineal suturing after childbirth and the type of repair may have an impact on pain and healing. For more than 70 years, researchers have been suggesting that continuous non-locking suture techniques for repair of the vagina, perineal muscles and skin are associated with less perineal pain than traditional interrupted methods.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 115 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Unspecified 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 15 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Other 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 50%
Unspecified 19 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Psychology 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 8 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,798,113
of 12,892,079 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,371
of 10,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,746
of 253,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#294
of 523 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,892,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 253,865 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 523 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.