↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 Mendeley
Title
Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004224.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Erasmo Huertas, Jeanne-Marie Guise, Dell Horey

Abstract

When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth, there are two options for her care in a subsequent pregnancy: planned elective repeat caesarean or planned vaginal birth. While there are risks and benefits for both planned elective repeat caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 294 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 71 23%
Researcher 40 13%
Student > Master 37 12%
Student > Postgraduate 30 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Other 59 19%
Unknown 41 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 9%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Psychology 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 52 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,908,249
of 18,096,829 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,482
of 11,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,798
of 240,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,096,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 240,969 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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 59% of its contemporaries.