↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prostaglandins before caesarean section for preventing neonatal respiratory distress

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
Title
Prostaglandins before caesarean section for preventing neonatal respiratory distress
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010087.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nkengafac V Motaze, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Taryn Young

Abstract

Respiratory distress (RD) can occur in both preterm and term neonates born through normal vaginal delivery or caesarean section (CS). It accounts for about 30% of neonatal deaths and can occur at any time following birth. Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnoea (rapid breathing) of the newborn and persistent pulmonary hypertension (increased blood pressure of pulmonary vessels) of the newborn are the most frequent clinical presentations of neonatal RD. Prostaglandins are used in routine obstetric practice to ripen the uterine cervix and to trigger labour, with those of the E series being preferred over others due to the fact that they are more uteroselective. Administration of prostaglandins to an expectant mother before delivery causes reabsorption of lung fluid from the fetal lung and promotes surfactant secretion by inducing a catecholamine surge. As a result, significant reduction in neonatal respiratory morbidity following a CS could be obtained, leading to reduced long-term complications such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (chronic lung disease with lung tissue modification) and asthma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 156 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 21%
Student > Bachelor 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 13%
Psychology 13 8%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 33 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#8,256,150
of 14,410,558 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,803
of 10,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,207
of 185,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,410,558 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,956 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 185,112 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.