↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Deflation of gastric band balloon in pregnancy for improving outcomes

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Deflation of gastric band balloon in pregnancy for improving outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010048.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda E Jefferys, Dimitrios Siassakos, Tim Draycott, Valentine A Akande, Robert Fox

Abstract

In line with the rise in the prevalence of obesity, an increasing number of women of childbearing age are undergoing laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), resulting in an increasing number of pregnancies with a band in place. Currently, there is no consensus on optimal band management in pregnancy. Some clinicians advocate leaving the band balloon inflated to reduce gestational weight gain and associated adverse perinatal outcomes. However, there are concerns that maintaining balloon inflation during pregnancy might increase the risk of band complications and adversely affect fetal development and/or growth as a result of reduced nutritional intake.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 182 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Unspecified 10 5%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 61 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Unspecified 10 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 66 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,338,652
of 25,383,225 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,879
of 12,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,290
of 200,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#183
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 200,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.