The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Hypnosis for induction of labour
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010852.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daisuke Nishi, Miyako N Shirakawa, Erika Ota, Nobutsugu Hanada, Rintaro Mori |
| Abstract |
Induction of labour using pharmacological and mechanical methods can increase complications. Complementary and alternative medicine methods including hypnosis may have the potential to provide a safe alternative option for the induction of labour. However, the effectiveness of hypnosis for inducing labour has not yet been fully evaluated. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 50% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 188 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 16% |
| Unknown | 73 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 11% |
| Psychology | 15 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 79 | 42% |
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 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,906,109
of 26,123,112 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,510
of 13,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,169
of 245,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#96
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,123,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 245,470 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 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 58% of its contemporaries.