| Title |
Interventions for the treatment of twin‐twin transfusion syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002073.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Devender Roberts, James P Neilson, Mark D Kilby, Simon Gates |
| Abstract |
Twin-twin transfusion syndrome, a condition affecting monochorionic twin pregnancies, is associated with a high risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity. A number of treatments have been introduced to treat the condition but it is unclear which intervention improves maternal and fetal outcome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Sweden | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 259 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 8% |
| Researcher | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 68 | 26% |
| Unknown | 76 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 14 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Psychology | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Unknown | 82 | 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 05 January 2020.
All research outputs
#5,430,941
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,658
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,390
of 325,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 325,038 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.