↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2022
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
64 tweeters
facebook
12 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
Title
Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2022
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010088.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill Moncrieff, Gillian ML Gyte, Hannah G Dahlen, Gill Thomson, Mandisa Singata-Madliki, Andrew Clegg, Soo Downe

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 tweeters 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Guatemala 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 216 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 19%
Unspecified 29 13%
Student > Master 28 13%
Researcher 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 54 24%
Unknown 33 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 19%
Unspecified 26 12%
Psychology 7 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 40 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 30 November 2022.
All research outputs
#596,049
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,165
of 12,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,115
of 437,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 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 12,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 437,933 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.