| Title |
Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007482.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fiona M Smaill, Rosalie M Grivell |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 Kingdom | 10 | 24% |
| Spain | 3 | 7% |
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Thailand | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 12% |
| Scientists | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 671 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 665 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 95 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 88 | 13% |
| Researcher | 57 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 54 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 7% |
| Other | 132 | 20% |
| Unknown | 200 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 276 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 48 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 29 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 2% |
| Other | 59 | 9% |
| Unknown | 226 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 13 January 2021.
All research outputs
#630,868
of 24,692,658 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,187
of 12,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,827
of 265,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,692,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 265,985 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 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 91% of its contemporaries.