↓ 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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th 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
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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 176 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 173 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 28 16%
Student > Postgraduate 19 11%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 32 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 17%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 36 20%

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
#3,791,186
of 16,175,423 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,158
of 11,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,320
of 262,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#302
of 508 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,175,423 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 262,752 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 508 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.