↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
159 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004350.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bosede B Afolabi, Foluso EA Lesi

Abstract

Regional anaesthesia (RA) and general anaesthesia (GA) are commonly used for caesarean section (CS) and both have advantages and disadvantages. It is important to clarify what type of anaesthesia is more efficacious.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Unknown 316 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Student > Master 38 12%
Student > Postgraduate 35 11%
Researcher 29 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 7%
Other 56 18%
Unknown 98 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 7%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 17 5%
Unknown 106 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 09 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,567,242
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,334
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,051
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 193,432 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 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 70% of its contemporaries.