↓ Skip to main content

Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
183 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 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
Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005455.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fidelma O'Mahony, G Justus Hofmeyr, Vijay Menon

Abstract

Instrumental or assisted vaginal birth is commonly used to expedite birth for the benefit of either mother or baby or both. It is sometimes associated with significant complications for both mother and baby. The choice of instrument may be influenced by clinical circumstances, operator choice and availability of specific instruments.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 294 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Student > Master 43 14%
Student > Postgraduate 40 13%
Researcher 31 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 10%
Other 73 24%
Unknown 45 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 162 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 11%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Psychology 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 1%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 60 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,155,716
of 16,286,869 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,110
of 11,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,606
of 266,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,286,869 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 266,106 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.