↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Maternal and foetal outcomes following natural vaginal versus caesarean section (c-section) delivery in women with bleeding disorders and carriers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Maternal and foetal outcomes following natural vaginal versus caesarean section (c-section) delivery in women with bleeding disorders and carriers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011059.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laxminarayan Karanth, Sachchithanantham Kanagasabai, Adinegara BL Abas

Abstract

Bleeding disorders are uncommon but may pose significant bleeding complications during pregnancy, labour and following delivery for both the woman and the foetus. While many bleeding disorders in women tend to improve in pregnancy, thus decreasing the haemorrhagic risk to the mother at the time of delivery, some do not correct or return quite quickly to their pre-pregnancy levels in the postpartum period. Therefore, specific measures to prevent maternal bleeding and foetal complications during childbirth, are required. The safest method of delivery to reduce morbidity and mortality in these women is controversial. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the optimal mode of delivery in women with, or carriers of, bleeding disorders. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register as well as trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search of the Group's Trials Registers: 16 February 2017. Randomised controlled trials and all types of controlled clinical trials investigating the optimal mode of delivery in women with, or carriers of, any type of bleeding disorder during pregnancy were eligible for the review. No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion MAIN RESULTS: No results from randomised controlled trials were found. The review did not identify any randomised controlled trials investigating the safest mode of delivery and associated maternal and foetal complications during delivery in women with, or carriers of, a bleeding disorder. In the absence of high quality evidence, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement and lower level evidence (e.g. from observational trials, case studies) to decide upon the optimal mode of delivery to ensure the safety of both mother and foetus.Given the ethical considerations, the rarity of the disorders and the low incidence of both maternal and foetal complications, future randomised controlled trials to find the optimal mode of delivery in this population are unlikely to be carried out. Other high quality controlled studies (such as risk allocation designs, sequential design, and parallel cohort design) are needed to investigate the risks and benefits of natural vaginal and caesarean section in this population or extrapolation from other clinical conditions that incur a haemorrhagic risk to the baby, such as platelet alloimmunisation.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 28 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 29 35%

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 04 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,556,245
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,356
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,694
of 265,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#219
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 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 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 265,818 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.