↓ 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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
222 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
366 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 366 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 358 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 13%
Student > Bachelor 41 11%
Researcher 39 11%
Student > Postgraduate 30 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 8%
Other 73 20%
Unknown 105 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 160 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 10%
Psychology 23 6%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 1%
Other 21 6%
Unknown 106 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 January 2024.
All research outputs
#5,471,255
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,375
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,044
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 193,432 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 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.