| Title |
Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007123.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
George J Bugg, Farah Siddiqui, Jim G Thornton |
| Abstract |
Slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour is associated with an increased caesarean section rate and fetal and maternal morbidity. Oxytocin has long been advocated as a treatment for slow progress in labour but it is unclear to what extent it improves the outcomes for that labour and whether it actually reduces the caesarean section rate or maternal and fetal morbidity. This review will address the use of oxytocin and whether it improves the outcomes for women who are progressing slowly in labour compared to situations where it is not used or where its administration is delayed. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 50% |
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 151 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 14% |
| Researcher | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 18% |
| Unknown | 43 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 13% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 52 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 02 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,179,062
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,692
of 12,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,300
of 198,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 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 12,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 198,300 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 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.