| Title |
Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta‐analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012602.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jay Ghosh, Argyro Papadopoulou, Adam J Devall, Hannah C Jeffery, Leanne E Beeson, Vivian Do, Malcolm J Price, Aurelio Tobias, Özge Tunçalp, Antonella Lavelanet, Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu, Arri Coomarasamy, Ioannis D Gallos |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 24% |
| United States | 5 | 8% |
| Switzerland | 4 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Kenya | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 41 | 62% |
| Scientists | 16 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 165 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 94 | 57% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 100 | 61% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#753,611
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,375
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,286
of 462,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 462,450 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 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.