↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of Retained Fetal Membranes in the Mare—A Practitioner Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Treatment of Retained Fetal Membranes in the Mare—A Practitioner Survey
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dinuka N. Warnakulasooriya, Christina D. Marth, Jacqueline A. McLeod, David W. Hanlon, Natali Krekeler

Abstract

Retained fetal membranes (RFM) is a common post-partum problem in mares for which the treatment is highly variable. The aim of this study was (i) to investigate the different treatments used by equine practitioners for RFM and (ii) to determine if there is a difference between treatments used by reproductive specialists and general equine practitioners. Information regarding treatment of RFM was sought from veterinary practitioners via a survey and this was compared to recommendations in the current literature. The survey was sent out to equine veterinarians and mixed practitioners with a high equine case load. Most treatments of RFM were in line with current recommendations, while some obsolete practices are still routinely performed by a small number of practitioners. Treatment recommendations for RFM have changed over the last few decades, but there are no universally accepted guidelines. The vast variety of treatments reported by practitioners in the present survey reflect this lack of guidance. More extensive research is needed in this area to establish evidence-based, uniformly agreed upon protocols.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 12 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Unknown 14 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,723,550
of 23,322,966 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#5,505
of 6,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,251
of 328,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#91
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 328,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.