↓ Skip to main content

Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 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
Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009290.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A Smith, Kate M Levett, Carmel T Collins, Leanne Jones

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 manual healing methods including massage and reflexology for pain management in labour.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Spain 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 213 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 22%
Student > Bachelor 37 16%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Other 52 23%
Unknown 20 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 19%
Psychology 21 9%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 26 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 26 November 2018.
All research outputs
#516,731
of 14,258,591 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,503
of 10,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,426
of 121,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,258,591 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 10,927 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 121,178 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 125 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.