↓ Skip to main content

Local anaesthetic wound infiltration and abdominal nerves block during caesarean section for postoperative pain relief

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Local anaesthetic wound infiltration and abdominal nerves block during caesarean section for postoperative pain relief
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006954.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony A Bamigboye, G Justus Hofmeyr

Abstract

Caesarean section delivery is becoming more frequent. Childbirth is an emotion-filled event and the mother needs to bond with her newborn baby as early as possible. Any intervention that leads to improvement in pain relief is worthy of investigation. Local anaesthetics, either on their own or in combination with opioids or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, have been employed as an adjunct to other postoperative pain relief strategies. Conflicting reports were noted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 154 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 21%
Student > Postgraduate 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 40 25%
Unknown 17 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 61%
Psychology 15 9%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 23 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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
#3,569,465
of 14,576,963 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,182
of 11,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,225
of 213,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#256
of 470 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,576,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 213,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 470 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.