↓ Skip to main content

Critical appraisal and clinical utility of atosiban in the management of preterm labor

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2010
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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Critical appraisal and clinical utility of atosiban in the management of preterm labor
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2010
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s9378
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olaleye Sanu, Ronald F Lamont

Abstract

Preterm birth is the major cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality in the developed world, and spontaneous preterm labor is the commonest cause of preterm birth. Interventions to treat women in spontaneous preterm labor have not reduced the incidence of preterm births but this may be due to increased risk factors, inclusion of births at the limits of viability, and an increase in the use of elective preterm birth. The role of antibiotics remains unproven. In the largest of the randomized controlled trials, evaluating the use of antibiotics for the prevention of preterm births in women in spontaneous preterm labor, antibiotics against anaerobes and bacterial vaginosis-related organisms were not included, and no objective evidence of abnormal genital tract flora was obtained. Atosiban and nifedipine are the main tocolytic agents used to treat women in spontaneous preterm labor, but atosiban is the tocolytic agent with the fewest maternal - fetal side effects. A well conducted randomized controlled trial comparing atosiban with nifedipine for their effectiveness and safety is needed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 4%
Portugal 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 22%
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Neuroscience 3 11%
Chemistry 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 July 2022.
All research outputs
#4,312,648
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#208
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,032
of 103,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 103,526 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.