↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2001
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001142
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Jewell, Gavin Young

Abstract

Constipation is a common problem in late pregnancy. Circulating progesterone may be the cause of slower gastrointestinal movement in mid and late pregnancy. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of different methods for treating constipation in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE. Date of last search: January 2001. Randomised trials of any treatment for constipation in pregnancy. Trial quality assessments and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers. Two suitable trials were identified. Fibre supplements increased the frequency of defecation (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.67), and lead to softer stools. Stimulant laxatives are more effective than bulk-forming laxatives (odds ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.61), but may cause more side effects. Dietary supplements of fibre in the form of bran or wheat fibre are likely to help women experiencing constipation in pregnancy. If the problem fails to resolve, stimulant laxatives are likely to prove more effective.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 23%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 19 March 2020.
All research outputs
#857,485
of 17,034,549 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,285
of 11,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,329
of 276,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,034,549 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 276,133 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.