↓ Skip to main content

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
46 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
23 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
363 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
325 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000081.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Jiang, Xu Qian, Guillermo Carroli, Paul Garner

Abstract

Episiotomy is done to prevent severe perineal tears, but its routine use has been questioned. The relative effects of midline compared with midlateral episiotomy are unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 325 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 1%
Spain 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Malawi 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 307 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 62 19%
Student > Master 54 17%
Student > Postgraduate 32 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 10%
Researcher 31 10%
Other 74 23%
Unknown 41 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 169 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 14%
Social Sciences 22 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 7 2%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 52 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 428. 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 26 October 2019.
All research outputs
#120,414
of 15,290,423 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#240
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,806
of 355,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,290,423 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 355,171 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 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 95% of its contemporaries.