↓ Skip to main content

Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 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
Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000078.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zarko Alfirevic, Stephen J Milan, Stefania Livio

Abstract

Planned caesarean delivery for women thought be in preterm labour may be protective for baby, but could also be quite traumatic for both mother and baby. The optimal mode of delivery of preterm babies for both cephalic and breech presentation remains, therefore, controversial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 275 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 17%
Student > Bachelor 45 16%
Researcher 38 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 12%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Other 61 22%
Unknown 34 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 152 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Psychology 10 4%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 47 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 18 September 2019.
All research outputs
#680,656
of 15,306,190 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,919
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,486
of 163,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,306,190 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 163,771 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 94% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.