↓ Skip to main content

Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for severe pre-eclampsia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 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
Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for severe pre-eclampsia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009430.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melania MR Amorim, Alex Sandro R Souza, Leila Katz

Abstract

Pre-eclampsia is a very frequent complication of pregnancy, and anticipation of birth is often necessary. However, the best mode of giving birth remains to be established, although observational studies suggest better maternal and perinatal outcomes with vaginal birth. To assess the effects of a policy of planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with severe pre-eclampsia on mortality and morbidity for mother and baby. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We planned to include all randomised trials of planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for pregnant women with severe pre-eclampsia. Quasi-randomised and non-randomised studies are not eligible for inclusion in this review.The focus of this review is severe pre-eclampsia; studies of planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth in pregnant women with eclampsia are not eligible for inclusion. We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. We excluded two studies. There are no included studies in this review. There is a lack of robust evidence from randomised controlled trials that can inform practice regarding planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with severe pre-eclampsia. There is a need for high-quality randomised controlled trials to assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth for these women and their babies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 19%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 42 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 17%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 47 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 07 May 2019.
All research outputs
#855,062
of 16,272,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,330
of 11,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,149
of 324,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,272,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 324,775 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 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 72% of its contemporaries.