The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Greece | 1 | 8% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 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 | 251 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 13% |
| Researcher | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 45 | 18% |
| Unknown | 76 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 84 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 5% |
| Psychology | 11 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Unknown | 82 | 32% |
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 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
#3,358,583
of 25,972,223 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,989
of 13,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,418
of 322,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,972,223 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 322,521 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 237 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 50% of its contemporaries.