↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
Title
Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000110.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A Crowther, Shanshan Han

Abstract

Bed rest used to be widely advised for women with a multiple pregnancy. The objective was to assess the effect of bed rest in hospital for women with a multiple pregnancy for prevention of preterm birth and other fetal, neonatal and maternal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2010). Randomised trials which compare outcomes in women with a multiple pregnancy and their babies who were offered bed rest in hospital with women only admitted to hospital if complications occurred. The review authors carried out assessment for inclusion and risk of bias of the trials. We extracted and double entered data, and used a random-effects model. We included seven trials which involved 713 women and 1452 babies. Routine bed rest in hospital for multiple pregnancy did not reduce the risk of preterm birth, or perinatal mortality. There was substantial heterogeneity related to perinatal death and stillbirth unaccounted for by trial quality. There was a suggestion of a decreased number of low birthweight infants (less than 2500 g) born to women in the routinely hospitalised group (risk ratio (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.00). No differences were seen in the number of very low birthweight infants (less than 1500 g). No support for the policy was found for other neonatal outcomes. No information is available on developmental outcomes for infants in any of the trials.For the secondary maternal outcomes reported of developing hypertension and caesarean delivery, no differences were seen. Women's views about the care they received were reported rarely.In the subgroup analyses for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy, with cervical dilation prior to labour with a twin pregnancy and with a triplet pregnancy, no differences were seen in any primary and secondary neonatal outcomes and maternal outcomes. There is currently not enough evidence to support a policy of routine hospitalisation for bed rest in multiple pregnancy. No reduction in the risk of preterm birth or perinatal death is evident, although there is a suggestion that fetal growth may be improved. For women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy the results of this review show no benefit from routine hospitalisation for bed rest. Until further evidence is available, the policy cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 158 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 28 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 38 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,289,261
of 16,540,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,099
of 11,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,687
of 294,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#144
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,540,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 294,550 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.