↓ 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 263 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 259 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 16%
Student > Master 35 13%
Student > Postgraduate 31 12%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 47 18%
Unknown 59 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 8%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 63 24%

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
#1,289,956
of 21,980,322 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,022
of 12,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,432
of 171,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,980,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 171,506 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.