The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 105 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.
Title |
Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004074.pub3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Susan J McDonald, Philippa Middleton, Therese Dowswell, Peter S Morris |
Abstract |
Policies for timing of cord clamping vary, with early cord clamping generally carried out in the first 60 seconds after birth, whereas later cord clamping usually involves clamping the umbilical cord more than one minute after the birth or when cord pulsation has ceased. The benefits and potential harms of each policy are debated. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 13 | 12% |
United Kingdom | 12 | 11% |
Indonesia | 7 | 7% |
Australia | 7 | 7% |
Mexico | 4 | 4% |
Canada | 4 | 4% |
Spain | 2 | 2% |
France | 1 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | 2% |
Unknown | 52 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 72 | 69% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 19% |
Scientists | 9 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 137 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
Researcher | 7 | 5% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 4% |
Other | 16 | 12% |
Unknown | 73 | 53% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 23% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 18% |
Unspecified | 2 | 1% |
Environmental Science | 1 | <1% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
Other | 4 | 3% |
Unknown | 73 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 339. 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 01 February 2024.
All research outputs
#102,254
of 26,370,291 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#192
of 13,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#573
of 208,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,370,291 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,211 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 98% 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 208,247 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 331 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 98% of its contemporaries.