↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Timing of intravenous prophylactic antibiotics for preventing postpartum infectious morbidity in women undergoing cesarean delivery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
Title
Timing of intravenous prophylactic antibiotics for preventing postpartum infectious morbidity in women undergoing cesarean delivery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009516.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Dhanya Mackeen, Roger E Packard, Erika Ota, Vincenzo Berghella, Jason K Baxter

Abstract

Given the continued rise in cesarean birth rate and the increased risk of surgical site infections after cesarean birth compared with vaginal birth, effective interventions must be established for prevention of surgical site infections. Prophylactic intravenous (IV) antibiotic administration 60 minutes prior to skin incision is recommended for abdominal gynecologic surgery; however, administration of prophylactic antibiotics has traditionally been withheld until after neonatal umbilical cord clamping during cesarean delivery due to the concern for potential transfer of antibiotics to the neonate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Norway 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 291 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 19%
Researcher 43 14%
Student > Bachelor 34 11%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Other 64 21%
Unknown 57 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 147 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 9%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 25 8%
Unknown 69 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 03 February 2020.
All research outputs
#672,063
of 18,752,310 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,602
of 11,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,608
of 323,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#41
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,752,310 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 323,297 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.