| Title |
Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003930.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mandisa Singata, Joan Tranmer, Gillian ML Gyte |
| Abstract |
Restricting fluids and foods during labour is common practice across many birth settings with some women only being allowed sips of water or ice chips. Restriction of oral intake may be unpleasant for some women, and may adversely influence their experience of labour. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 12% |
| Spain | 7 | 10% |
| France | 5 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 6% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 35 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 56 | 81% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
| Scientists | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 424 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 416 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 63 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 62 | 15% |
| Researcher | 44 | 10% |
| Other | 30 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 7% |
| Other | 87 | 21% |
| Unknown | 108 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 145 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 84 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 3% |
| Psychology | 10 | 2% |
| Other | 33 | 8% |
| Unknown | 122 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 110. 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 06 March 2023.
All research outputs
#356,557
of 24,297,440 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#632
of 12,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,660
of 203,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,297,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 203,909 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 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.