↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour

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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
193 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 Mendeley
Title
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003401.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott W Simmons, Neda Taghizadeh, Alicia T Dennis, Damien Hughes, Allan M Cyna

Abstract

Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 312 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 14%
Researcher 38 12%
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Student > Postgraduate 28 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 9%
Other 69 22%
Unknown 74 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 151 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 11%
Psychology 24 8%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 15 5%
Unknown 78 24%

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 29 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,630,461
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,004
of 12,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,325
of 175,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 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 12,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 175,852 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.