↓ Skip to main content

Symphysiotomy for feto‐pelvic disproportion

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 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
Symphysiotomy for feto‐pelvic disproportion
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005299.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

G Justus Hofmeyr, P Mike Shweni

Abstract

Symphysiotomy is an operation in which the fibres of the pubic symphysis are partially divided to allow separation of the joint and thus enlargement of the pelvic dimensions during childbirth. It is performed with local analgesia and does not require an operating theatre nor advanced surgical skills. It may be a lifesaving procedure for the mother or the baby, or both, in several clinical situations. These include: failure to progress in labour when caesarean section is unavailable, unsafe or declined by the mother; and obstructed birth of the aftercoming head of a breech presenting baby. Criticism of the operation because of complications, particularly pelvic instability, and as being a 'second best' option has resulted in its decline or disappearance from use in many countries. Several large observational studies have reported high rates of success, low rates of complications and very low mortality rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 218 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 13%
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Unspecified 14 6%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 62 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 9%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Unspecified 14 6%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 64 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 25 November 2023.
All research outputs
#813,205
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,550
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,641
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 193,432 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 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.