↓ Skip to main content

Use of hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Use of hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005143.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sia AT, Tan KH, Sng BL, Lim Y, Chan ES, Siddiqui FJ

Abstract

Bupivacaine is an amide local anaesthetic used in hyperbaric and isobaric forms. These are administered intrathecally into the spine to provide regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. Several trials have compared hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine but none have conclusively shown benefit of either.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 2 3%
Rwanda 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 55 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Postgraduate 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 17 29%
Unknown 2 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 75%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 5 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 July 2013.
All research outputs
#3,421,666
of 8,604,292 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,249
of 8,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,223
of 124,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,604,292 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 124,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.