↓ Skip to main content

Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping and other strategies to influence placental transfusion at preterm birth on maternal and infant outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
15 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
309 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
325 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
Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping and other strategies to influence placental transfusion at preterm birth on maternal and infant outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003248.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heike Rabe, Jose Luis Diaz-Rossello, Lelia Duley, Therese Dowswell

Abstract

Optimal timing for clamping the umbilical cord at preterm birth is unclear. Early clamping allows for immediate transfer of the infant to the neonatologist. Delaying clamping allows blood flow between the placenta, the umbilical cord and the baby to continue. The blood which transfers to the baby between birth and cord clamping is called placental transfusion. Placental transfusion may improve circulating volume at birth, which may in turn improve outcome for preterm infants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 325 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Canada 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Saudi Arabia 2 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 304 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 18%
Student > Bachelor 49 15%
Researcher 45 14%
Other 39 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 10%
Other 98 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 199 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 13%
Unspecified 31 10%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Other 30 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 21 October 2018.
All research outputs
#139,162
of 12,388,051 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#278
of 8,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,062
of 126,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,388,051 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 8,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 126,424 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 81 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 97% of its contemporaries.