↓ Skip to main content

Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
18 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
375 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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
Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000331.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Millicent Anim-Somuah, Rebecca MD Smyth, Leanne Jones

Abstract

Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns regarding unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 262 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 48 18%
Student > Master 44 16%
Researcher 32 12%
Other 30 11%
Student > Postgraduate 24 9%
Other 71 26%
Unknown 24 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 154 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 14%
Social Sciences 17 6%
Psychology 12 4%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Other 15 5%
Unknown 29 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 148. 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 03 February 2020.
All research outputs
#129,488
of 15,561,399 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#258
of 11,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#924
of 219,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 497 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,561,399 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 11,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. 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 219,433 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 497 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.