↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Symphysiotomy for feto‐pelvic disproportion

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
Title
Symphysiotomy for feto‐pelvic disproportion
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005299.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

G Justus Hofmeyr, P Mike Shweni

Abstract

Symphysiotomy is an operation in which the fibres of the pubic symphysis are partially divided to allow separation of the joint and thus enlargement of the pelvic dimensions during childbirth. It is performed with local analgesia and does not require an operating theatre nor advanced surgical skills. It may be a lifesaving procedure for the mother or the baby, or both, in several clinical situations. These include: failure to progress in labour when caesarean section is unavailable, unsafe or declined by the mother; and obstructed birth of the aftercoming head of a breech presenting baby. Criticism of the operation because of complications, particularly pelvic instability, and as being a 'second best' option has resulted in its decline or disappearance from use in many countries. Several large observational studies have reported high rates of success, low rates of complications and very low mortality rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 201 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 55 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Psychology 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 57 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 25 November 2023.
All research outputs
#807,616
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,552
of 12,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,594
of 192,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 192,748 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.