↓ 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 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 267 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 255 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 15%
Student > Master 38 14%
Student > Postgraduate 35 13%
Researcher 30 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 10%
Other 62 23%
Unknown 36 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 12%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Psychology 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 53 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
#1,024,141
of 15,115,606 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,947
of 11,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,818
of 259,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,115,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 259,093 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 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 74% of its contemporaries.