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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Unsafe abortion and associated factors among reproductive aged women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0775-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Merhawi Gebremedhin, Agumasie Semahegn, Tofik Usmael, Gezahegn Tesfaye |
| Abstract |
Unsafe abortion is a neglected public health problem contributing for 13% of maternal death worldwide. In Africa, 99% of abortions are unsafe resulting in one maternal death per 150 cases. The prevalence of unsafe abortion is associated with restricted abortion law, poor quality of health service, and low community awareness. Hence, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify and summarize the available evidence to generate an abridged evidence on the prevalence of unsafe abortion and its associated factors in Sub-Saharan Africa. The development of the systematic review methodology has followed the procedural guideline depicted in the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocol statement. Observational studies that have been conducted from January 1, 1994, up to December 31, 2017, in Sub-Saharan African countries will be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, and PopLine will be searched to retrieve available studies. Relevant studies will be retrieved using the search strings applied to different sources. The Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool will be used to critically appraise the methodological robustness and validity of the finding to avoid erroneous data due to confounded or biased statistics. Data extraction template will be prepared to record abstracted information from selected studies. The selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies will be carried out by two authors. Meta-analysis using Mantel-Haenszel random effects model will be carried out. The presence of heterogeneity between studies will be checked using the I2 value. Unsafe abortion is not yet reduced significantly in Sub-Saharan Africa, and maternal death rate due to unsafe abortion remains high. Currently, there is a gap in availability of abridged evidence on unsafe abortion and this negatively influenced the current service delivery. This finding will help stakeholders to design appropriate strategy. The finding of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be helpful to inform policy-makers, programmers, planners, clinician's decision making, researchers, and women clients at large. PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017081437 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 16% |
| Nigeria | 2 | 11% |
| Mexico | 2 | 11% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 5% |
| Zambia | 1 | 5% |
| Iceland | 1 | 5% |
| Kenya | 1 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 89% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 465 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 465 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 70 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 42 | 9% |
| Researcher | 31 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 6% |
| Other | 45 | 10% |
| Unknown | 194 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 98 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 72 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 1% |
| Other | 42 | 9% |
| Unknown | 214 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 May 2023.
All research outputs
#455,679
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#50
of 2,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,627
of 343,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. 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 343,921 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 96% of its contemporaries.