| Title |
Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005455.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fidelma O'Mahony, G Justus Hofmeyr, Vijay Menon |
| Abstract |
Instrumental or assisted vaginal birth is commonly used to expedite birth for the benefit of either mother or baby or both. It is sometimes associated with significant complications for both mother and baby. The choice of instrument may be influenced by clinical circumstances, operator choice and availability of specific instruments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 368 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 357 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 47 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 41 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 9% |
| Researcher | 33 | 9% |
| Other | 88 | 24% |
| Unknown | 79 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 178 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 4% |
| Psychology | 11 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 25 | 7% |
| Unknown | 95 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 15 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,989,709
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,238
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,433
of 111,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 111,030 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.