↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for improving outcomes for pregnant women who have experienced genital cutting

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for improving outcomes for pregnant women who have experienced genital cutting
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009872.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olukunmi O Balogun, Fumi Hirayama, Windy MV Wariki, Ai Koyanagi, Rintaro Mori

Abstract

Female genital cutting (FGC) refers to all procedures that involve the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are no known medical benefits to FGC, and it can be potentially dangerous for the health and psychological well-being of women and girls who are subjected to the practice resulting in short- and long-term complications. Health problems of significance associated with FGC faced by most women are maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, the need for assisted delivery and psychological distress. Under good clinical guidelines for caring for women who have undergone genital cutting, interventions could provide holistic care that is culturally sensitive and non-judgemental to improve outcomes and overall quality of life of women. This review focuses on key interventions carried out to improve outcome and overall quality of life in pregnant women who have undergone FGC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 208 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 17%
Student > Master 31 15%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 45 21%
Unknown 45 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Psychology 25 12%
Social Sciences 18 9%
Unspecified 3 1%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 52 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,324,646
of 20,535,273 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,964
of 12,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,198
of 168,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#34
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,535,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 168,342 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.