↓ Skip to main content

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% 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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004906.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Rosalie M Grivell, Andrea R Deussen

Abstract

When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy, two options are available for her care: an elective repeat caesarean and planned induction of labour. Although risks and benefits are associated with both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies, and studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias. Consequently, any conclusions based on results of these studies are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution. To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section versus a policy of induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth who require induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy. Primary outcomes include success of induction of labour, need for caesarean section, maternal and neonatal mortality, and maternal and neonatal morbidity. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (31 May 2017) and planned to search reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials with reported data on comparison of outcomes in mothers and babies between women who planned an elective repeat caesarean section and women who planned induction of labour when a previous birth was performed by caesarean. Cluster trials and quasi-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion. We would consider trials published only as abstracts if they provided enough information to meet review inclusion criteria. We performed no data extraction. For future updates, if randomised controlled trials are identified, two review authors will independently assess trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and will extract data and check extracted data for accuracy. Review authors will assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Review authors identified no randomised controlled trials. Both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices has been drawn from non-randomised studies, which are associated with potential bias. Therefore, any results and conclusions presented must be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 161 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 36 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 14%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Unspecified 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 46 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#563,751
of 14,699,827 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,601
of 11,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,798
of 267,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,699,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 267,580 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 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.