↓ Skip to main content

Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 1996
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 8,707)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 1996
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004074.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan J McDonald, Philippa Middleton, Therese Dowswell, Peter S Morris, McDonald SJ, Middleton P, Dowswell T, Morris PS, McDonald, Susan J, Middleton, Philippa, Dowswell, Therese, Morris, Peter S

Abstract

Policies for timing of cord clamping vary, with early cord clamping generally carried out in the first 60 seconds after birth, whereas later cord clamping usually involves clamping the umbilical cord more than one minute after the birth or when cord pulsation has ceased. The benefits and potential harms of each policy are debated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 138 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 9%
United States 1 9%
Canada 1 9%
Unknown 8 73%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 45%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 18%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 91%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 331. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,696
of 8,078,827 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 8,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244
of 125,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,078,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 125,043 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.