↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
498 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
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

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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

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.