↓ 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, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004906.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Grivell RM, Deussen AR, Dodd, Jodie M, Crowther, Caroline A, Grivell, Rosalie M, Deussen, Andrea R

Abstract

When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy there are two options for her care, an elective repeat caesarean or planned induction of labour. While there are risks and benefits for both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently any conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Unknown 5 71%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Unknown 5 71%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 January 2015.
All research outputs
#9,676,700
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,272
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,530
of 295,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#185
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 295,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.