The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 136 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 |
Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000081.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hong Jiang, Xu Qian, Guillermo Carroli, Paul Garner |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 16 | 12% |
| India | 10 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 7% |
| United States | 8 | 6% |
| Brazil | 5 | 4% |
| Ireland | 5 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 5 | 4% |
| France | 4 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 54 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 103 | 76% |
| Scientists | 14 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 983 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 983 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 130 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 117 | 12% |
| Researcher | 72 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 59 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 51 | 5% |
| Other | 171 | 17% |
| Unknown | 383 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 248 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 169 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 35 | 4% |
| Psychology | 20 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 1% |
| Other | 80 | 8% |
| Unknown | 417 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 263. 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 09 September 2024.
All research outputs
#149,547
of 26,760,626 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#257
of 13,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,245
of 429,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,760,626 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 13,275 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 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 429,926 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 268 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 95% of its contemporaries.