The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Intramuscular versus intravenous anti‐D for preventing Rhesus alloimmunization during pregnancy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007885.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles I Okwundu, Bosede B Afolabi |
| Abstract |
Antibodies to the red cell Rhesus D (RhD) antigen can be produced during pregnancy in a RhD-negative mother carrying a RhD-positive fetus, in particular following feto-maternal haemorrhage at birth or following any procedure that may cause feto-maternal haemorrhage. While the first baby is usually not harmed, these antibodies may cause haemolytic disease of the fetus/newborn (HDFN) in subsequent RhD-positive babies. RhD incompatibility is a major cause of HDFN.To reduce the risk of HDFN, anti-D is given to RhD-negative mothers at 28 or 30 weeks of pregnancy and within 72 hours of potential maternal exposure to fetal red cells. Anit-D is currently available in both intramuscular (IM) and intravenous (IV) preparations. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 51 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 52 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 February 2021.
All research outputs
#6,825,682
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,411
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,022
of 291,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 291,911 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 170 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.