↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic interventions after delivery of placenta for reducing bleeding during the postnatal period

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Prophylactic interventions after delivery of placenta for reducing bleeding during the postnatal period
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009328.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yukari Yaju, Yaeko Kataoka, Hiromi Eto, Shigeko Horiuchi, Rintaro Mori

Abstract

There are several Cochrane systematic reviews looking at postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) prophylaxis in the third stage of labour and another Cochrane review investigating the timing of prophylactic uterotonics in the third stage of labour (i.e. before or after delivery of the placenta). There are, however, no Cochrane reviews looking at the use of interventions given purely after delivery of the placenta. Ergometrine or methylergometrine are used for the prevention of PPH in the postpartum period (the period after delivery of the infant) after delivery of the placenta in some countries. There are, furthermore, no Cochrane reviews that have so far considered herbal therapies or homeopathic remedies for the prevention of PPH after delivery of the placenta.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 135 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 18%
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 17 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 20 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,526,839
of 13,622,595 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,172
of 10,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,986
of 251,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,622,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 251,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 57% of its contemporaries.