↓ Skip to main content

Antispasmodics for labour

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Antispasmodics for labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009243.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke C Rohwer, Oswell Khondowe, Taryn Young

Abstract

Prolonged labour can lead to increased maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity due to increased risks of maternal exhaustion, postpartum haemorrhage and sepsis, fetal distress and asphyxia and requires early detection and appropriate clinical response. The risks for complications of prolonged labour are much greater in poor resource settings. Active management of labour versus physiological, expectant management, has shown to decrease the occurrence of prolonged labour. Administering antispasmodics during labour could also lead to faster and more effective dilatation of the cervix. Interventions to shorten labour, such as antispasmodics, can be used as a preventative or a treatment strategy in order to decrease the incidence of prolonged labour. As the evidence to support this is still largely anecdotal around the world, there is a need to systematically review the available evidence to obtain a valid answer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 166 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 16%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 11%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 17%
Psychology 13 8%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 29 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 June 2014.
All research outputs
#3,822,854
of 14,395,965 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,649
of 10,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,771
of 154,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,395,965 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 154,777 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.