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 |
A Systematic Review of the Robson Classification for Caesarean Section: What Works, Doesn't Work and How to Improve It
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Pilar Betrán, Nadia Vindevoghel, Joao Paulo Souza, A. Metin Gülmezoglu, Maria Regina Torloni |
| Abstract |
Caesarean sections (CS) rates continue to increase worldwide without a clear understanding of the main drivers and consequences. The lack of a standardized internationally-accepted classification system to monitor and compare CS rates is one of the barriers to a better understanding of this trend. The Robson's 10-group classification is based on simple obstetrical parameters (parity, previous CS, gestational age, onset of labour, fetal presentation and number of fetuses) and does not involve the indication for CS. This classification has become very popular over the last years in many countries. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the experience of users on the implementation of this classification and proposed adaptations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 380 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 374 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 72 | 19% |
| Researcher | 37 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 31 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 8% |
| Other | 73 | 19% |
| Unknown | 103 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 188 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 19 | 5% |
| Unknown | 106 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 21 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,535,687
of 24,746,716 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#19,267
of 214,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,143
of 233,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#398
of 4,358 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,746,716 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 214,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 233,128 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 4,358 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.