↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
23 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 Mendeley
Title
Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007412.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cecily M Begley, Gillian ML Gyte, Declan Devane, William McGuire, Andrew Weeks

Abstract

Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With expectant management, signs of placental separation are awaited and the placenta is delivered spontaneously. Active management was introduced to try to reduce haemorrhage, a major contributor to maternal mortality in low-income countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 253 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 55 21%
Student > Master 51 20%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 7%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 43 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 24%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Psychology 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 11 4%
Unknown 52 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 04 November 2018.
All research outputs
#804,904
of 14,625,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,377
of 11,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,472
of 215,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,625,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 215,028 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.