| 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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 | 24 | 40% |
| Germany | 4 | 7% |
| Australia | 3 | 5% |
| Ireland | 3 | 5% |
| Jamaica | 1 | 2% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 18% |
| Scientists | 10 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 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 | 273 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 52 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 11% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 53 | 19% |
| Unknown | 86 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 91 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 51 | 18% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Engineering | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 8% |
| Unknown | 93 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 05 April 2024.
All research outputs
#453,031
of 25,657,205 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#794
of 13,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,493
of 449,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,657,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 449,731 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 105 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 90% of its contemporaries.