↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intravenous fluids for reducing the duration of labour in low risk nulliparous women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous fluids for reducing the duration of labour in low risk nulliparous women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007715.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Feroza Dawood, Therese Dowswell, Siobhan Quenby

Abstract

Several factors may influence the progression of normal labour. It has been postulated that the routine administration of intravenous fluids to keep women adequately hydrated during labour may reduce the period of contraction and relaxation of the uterine muscle, and may ultimately reduce the duration of the labour. It has also been suggested that intravenous fluids may reduce caesarean sections (CS) for prolonged labour. However, the routine administration of intravenous fluids to labouring women has not been adequately elucidated although it is a widely-adopted policy, and there is no consensus on the type or volume of fluids that are required, or indeed, whether intravenous fluids are at all necessary. Women may be able to adequately hydrate themselves if they were allowed oral fluids during labour.Furthermore, excessive volumes of intravenous fluids may pose risks to both the mother and her newborn and different fluids are associated with different risks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 271 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 16%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Other 19 7%
Other 69 25%
Unknown 59 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 13%
Social Sciences 22 8%
Unspecified 16 6%
Psychology 11 4%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 65 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 May 2014.
All research outputs
#3,673,225
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,182
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,976
of 196,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 196,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.