↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
93 tweeters
facebook
24 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
Title
Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007238.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ban Leong Sng, Wan Ling Leong, Yanzhi Zeng, Fahad Javaid Siddiqui, Pryseley N Assam, Yvonne Lim, Edwin SY Chan, Alex T Sia

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 186 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 16%
Other 26 14%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 18 10%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 28 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 19%
Psychology 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 41 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 154. 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 24 November 2020.
All research outputs
#151,871
of 17,788,816 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#285
of 11,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,886
of 219,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,788,816 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 219,538 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.