↓ Skip to main content

Secondary suturing compared to non-suturing for broken down perineal wounds following childbirth

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
Secondary suturing compared to non-suturing for broken down perineal wounds following childbirth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008977.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn M Dudley, Christine Kettle, Khaled MK Ismail

Abstract

Each year approximately 350,000 women in the United Kingdom and millions more worldwide, experience perineal suturing following childbirth. The postpartum management of perineal trauma is a core component of routine maternity care. However, for those women whose perineal wound dehisces (breaks down), the management varies depending on individual practitioners preferences as there is limited scientific evidence and no clear guidelines to inform best practice. For most women the wound will be managed expectantly whereas, others may be offered secondary suturing.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Unknown 166 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 24%
Student > Bachelor 29 17%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 26 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Psychology 17 10%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 31 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,403,301
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,855
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,100
of 160,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 160,676 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.