↓ Skip to main content

Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000110.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A Crowther, Shanshan Han

Abstract

Bed rest used to be widely advised for women with a multiple pregnancy. The objective was to assess the effect of bed rest in hospital for women with a multiple pregnancy for prevention of preterm birth and other fetal, neonatal and maternal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2010). Randomised trials which compare outcomes in women with a multiple pregnancy and their babies who were offered bed rest in hospital with women only admitted to hospital if complications occurred. The review authors carried out assessment for inclusion and risk of bias of the trials. We extracted and double entered data, and used a random-effects model. We included seven trials which involved 713 women and 1452 babies. Routine bed rest in hospital for multiple pregnancy did not reduce the risk of preterm birth, or perinatal mortality. There was substantial heterogeneity related to perinatal death and stillbirth unaccounted for by trial quality. There was a suggestion of a decreased number of low birthweight infants (less than 2500 g) born to women in the routinely hospitalised group (risk ratio (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.00). No differences were seen in the number of very low birthweight infants (less than 1500 g). No support for the policy was found for other neonatal outcomes. No information is available on developmental outcomes for infants in any of the trials.For the secondary maternal outcomes reported of developing hypertension and caesarean delivery, no differences were seen. Women's views about the care they received were reported rarely.In the subgroup analyses for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy, with cervical dilation prior to labour with a twin pregnancy and with a triplet pregnancy, no differences were seen in any primary and secondary neonatal outcomes and maternal outcomes. There is currently not enough evidence to support a policy of routine hospitalisation for bed rest in multiple pregnancy. No reduction in the risk of preterm birth or perinatal death is evident, although there is a suggestion that fetal growth may be improved. For women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy the results of this review show no benefit from routine hospitalisation for bed rest. Until further evidence is available, the policy cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 124 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 19 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 27 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 March 2014.
All research outputs
#3,639,773
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,990
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,428
of 274,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#163
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 274,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.