↓ Skip to main content

Lactational amenorrhoea method for family planning

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Lactational amenorrhoea method for family planning
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001329.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla Van der Wijden, Carol Manion

Abstract

It is estimated that about 40% of pregnancies in the world are unintended and that the major part of these are unwanted. There are several reasons no or ineffective contraception is used to prevent these pregnancies, including difficulty in obtaining contraceptives. The lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM) is a contraceptive method where the mother is informed and supported in how to use breastfeeding for contraception. LAM is available and accessible to many women. To assess the effectiveness of LAM, as defined in the 1988 Bellagio Consensus statement, as a contraceptive method in fully breastfeeding women, who remain amenorrheic, using pregnancy and menstruation life tables. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS to 10 October 2014; reference lists of studies; review articles; books related to LAM; published abstracts from breastfeeding, reproductive health conferences; e-mails with study coordinators. Out of 459 potentially relevant studies, 159 investigated the risk of pregnancy during LAM or lactational amenorrhoea. Our inclusion criteria were as follows: prospective study; cases (intervention group) and, if available, controls, had to be sexually active; pregnancy had to be confirmed by physical examination or a pregnancy test. Our endpoints were life table menstruation rates and life table pregnancy rates. We included 15 studies reporting on 11 intervention groups and three control groups. We identified one additional uncontrolled study in the 2007 update and one additional controlled study in this 2015 update. Two review authors independently extracted data, resolving disagreements through discussion. We analysed the studies using narrative methods because of their heterogeneity. For the primary outcome, pregnancy, two controlled studies of LAM users reported life table pregnancy rates at six months of 0.45% and 2.45%, one controlled study reported 5% pregnancies in the absence of life table rates per month, and eight uncontrolled studies of LAM users reported pregnancy rates of 0% to 7.5%. Life table pregnancy rates for fully breastfeeding women who were amenorrheic but not using any contraceptive method were 0.88% in one study and 0.9% to 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 2.4) in a second study, depending on the definition of menstruation used. The life table menstruation rate at six months in all studies varied between 11.1% and 39.4%. We found no clear differences in life table pregnancy rates between women using LAM and being supported in doing so, and fully breastfeeding amenorrheic women not using any method. As the length of lactation amenorrhoea in women using LAM differed greatly between the populations studied, and was population specific, it is uncertain whether LAM extends lactational amenorrhoea.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 144 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 20%
Student > Bachelor 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Postgraduate 16 11%
Researcher 16 11%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 19%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 30 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,076,429
of 14,794,860 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,084
of 11,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,293
of 251,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,794,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 251,666 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 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 60% of its contemporaries.