↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007482.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Smaill FM, Gyte GM, Fiona M Smaill, Gillian ML Gyte

Abstract

The single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean section. Routine prophylaxis with antibiotics may reduce this risk and should be assessed in terms of benefits and harms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Ghana 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 147 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Postgraduate 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 20 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 December 2016.
All research outputs
#4,861,707
of 17,349,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,356
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,539
of 170,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,349,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 170,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.