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 |
Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009514 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline A Smith, Kate M Levett, Carmel T Collins, Caroline A Crowther |
| Abstract |
Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence supporting the use of relaxation therapies for pain management in labour. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 38% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Malawi | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 285 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 48 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 9% |
| Researcher | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 61 | 20% |
| Unknown | 56 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 124 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 6% |
| Psychology | 12 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 8% |
| Unknown | 65 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 14 July 2016.
All research outputs
#931,649
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,822
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,261
of 247,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 247,349 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 208 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 92% of its contemporaries.