↓ Skip to main content

Early amniotomy and early oxytocin for prevention of, or therapy for, delay in first stage spontaneous labour compared with routine care

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 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
Early amniotomy and early oxytocin for prevention of, or therapy for, delay in first stage spontaneous labour compared with routine care
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006794.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuqin Wei, Bi Lan Wo, Hui-Ping Qi, Hairong Xu, Zhong-Cheng Luo, Chantal Roy, William D Fraser

Abstract

Caesarean section rates are over 20% in many developed countries. The main diagnosis contributing to the high rate in nulliparae is dystocia or prolonged labour. The present review assesses the effects of a policy of early amniotomy with early oxytocin administration for the prevention of, or the therapy for, delay in labour progress.

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

Geographical breakdown

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

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 21%
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 18 15%
Unspecified 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 30 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 53%
Unspecified 25 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 8 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,070,172
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,357
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,895
of 152,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 152,500 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.