| Title |
Secondary suturing compared to non-suturing for broken down perineal wounds following childbirth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008977.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynn M Dudley, Christine Kettle, Khaled MK Ismail |
| Abstract |
Each year approximately 350,000 women in the United Kingdom and millions more worldwide, experience perineal suturing following childbirth. The postpartum management of perineal trauma is a core component of routine maternity care. However, for those women whose perineal wound dehisces (breaks down), the management varies depending on individual practitioners preferences as there is limited scientific evidence and no clear guidelines to inform best practice. For most women the wound will be managed expectantly whereas, others may be offered secondary suturing. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 296 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 8% |
| Researcher | 21 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 50 | 17% |
| Unknown | 88 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 14% |
| Psychology | 31 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 6% |
| Unknown | 93 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,498,478
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,847
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,038
of 203,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 203,246 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.