↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Umbilical cord antiseptics for preventing sepsis and death among newborns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
445 Mendeley
Title
Umbilical cord antiseptics for preventing sepsis and death among newborns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008635.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aamer Imdad, Resti Ma M Bautista, Kathlynne Anne A Senen, Ma Esterlita V Uy, Jacinto Blas Mantaring, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Abstract

The umbilical cord is a structure made of blood vessels and connective tissue that connects the baby and placenta in utero. The umbilical cord is cut after birth, which separates the mother and her baby both physically and symbolically. Omphalitis is defined as infection of the umbilical cord stump. Tracking of bacteria along the umbilical vessels may lead to septicaemia that can result in neonatal morbidity and mortality, especially in developing countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 445 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 440 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 18%
Student > Bachelor 55 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 9%
Researcher 39 9%
Other 28 6%
Other 68 15%
Unknown 134 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 154 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 73 16%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 1%
Other 38 9%
Unknown 138 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 29 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,295,859
of 25,770,491 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,703
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,292
of 208,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,770,491 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 208,030 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 285 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.