↓ Skip to main content

Routine vaginal examinations for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
41 tweeters
facebook
47 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
284 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
Routine vaginal examinations for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010088.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soo Downe, Gillian ML Gyte, Hannah G Dahlen, Mandisa Singata

Abstract

Vaginal examinations have become a routine intervention in labour as a means of assessing labour progress. Used at regular intervals, either alone or as a component of the partogram (a pre-printed form providing a pictorial overview of the progress of labour), the aim is to assess if labour is progressing physiologically, and to provide an early warning of slow progress. Abnormally slow progress can be a sign of labour dystocia, which is associated with maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, particularly in low-income countries where appropriate interventions cannot easily be accessed. However, over-diagnosis of dystocia can lead to iatrogenic morbidity from unnecessary intervention (e.g. operative vaginal birth or caesarean section). It is, therefore, important to establish whether or not the routine use of vaginal examinations is an effective intervention, both as a diagnostic tool for true labour dystocia, and as an accurate measure of physiological labour progress.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 284 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Guatemala 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 277 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 62 22%
Student > Master 47 17%
Researcher 35 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 7%
Other 62 22%
Unknown 28 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 17%
Psychology 20 7%
Social Sciences 17 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 38 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 25 December 2019.
All research outputs
#245,208
of 14,185,873 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#592
of 10,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,827
of 156,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,185,873 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 156,671 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 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 95% of its contemporaries.