↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007482.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Smaill FM, Gyte GM, Fiona M Smaill, Gillian ML Gyte

Abstract

The single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean section. Routine prophylaxis with antibiotics may reduce this risk and should be assessed in terms of benefits and harms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Ghana 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 118 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 9 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 14 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2013.
All research outputs
#7,562,100
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,632
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,279
of 150,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 150,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.