↓ Skip to main content

Predictive modeling of emergency cesarean delivery

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2018
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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Predictive modeling of emergency cesarean delivery
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0191248
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Campillo-Artero, Miquel Serra-Burriel, Andrés Calvo-Pérez

Abstract

To increase discriminatory accuracy (DA) for emergency cesarean sections (ECSs). We prospectively collected data on and studied all 6,157 births occurring in 2014 at four public hospitals located in three different autonomous communities of Spain. To identify risk factors (RFs) for ECS, we used likelihood ratios and logistic regression, fitted a classification tree (CTREE), and analyzed a random forest model (RFM). We used the areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves (AUCs) to assess their DA. The magnitude of the LR+ for all putative individual RFs and ORs in the logistic regression models was low to moderate. Except for parity, all putative RFs were positively associated with ECS, including hospital fixed-effects and night-shift delivery. The DA of all logistic models ranged from 0.74 to 0.81. The most relevant RFs (pH, induction, and previous C-section) in the CTREEs showed the highest ORs in the logistic models. The DA of the RFM and its most relevant interaction terms was even higher (AUC = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.93-0.95). Putative fetal, maternal, and contextual RFs alone fail to achieve reasonable DA for ECS. It is the combination of these RFs and the interactions between them at each hospital that make it possible to improve the DA for the type of delivery and tailor interventions through prediction to improve the appropriateness of ECS indications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 30 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 35 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,664,782
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#64,706
of 196,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,125
of 441,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,060
of 3,487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 441,064 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,487 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.