↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
156 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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 profile of 1 tweeter 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 265 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 16%
Student > Bachelor 37 14%
Researcher 35 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Student > Postgraduate 24 9%
Other 64 23%
Unknown 44 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 12%
Psychology 19 7%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 1%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 51 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 October 2020.
All research outputs
#9,719,304
of 17,585,248 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,217
of 11,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,050
of 156,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#63
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,585,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 156,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.