↓ Skip to main content

Morning versus evening induction of labour for improving outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Morning versus evening induction of labour for improving outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007707.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jannet JH Bakker, Birgit Y van der Goes, Maria Pel, Ben Willem J Mol, Joris AM van der Post

Abstract

Induction of labour is a common intervention in obstetric practice. Traditionally, in most hospitals induction of labour with medication starts early in the morning, with the start of the working day for the day shift. In human and animal studies spontaneous onset of labour is proven to have a circadian rhythm with a preference for start of labour in the evening. Moreover, when spontaneous labour starts in the evening, the total duration of labour and delivery shortens and fewer obstetric interventions are needed. Based on these observations one might assume that starting induction of labour in the evening, in harmony with the circadian rhythm of natural birth, is more beneficial for both mother and child.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 122 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Other 9 7%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 19 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,040,380
of 13,992,064 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,104
of 10,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,783
of 146,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,992,064 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 146,793 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.