↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Specialised antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
Title
Specialised antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005300.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie M Dodd, Therese Dowswell, Caroline A Crowther

Abstract

Regular antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy is accepted practice, and while most women have an increase in the number of antenatal visits, there is no consensus as to what constitutes optimal care. 'Specialised' antenatal clinics have been advocated as a way of improving outcomes for women and their infants. To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of 'specialised' antenatal clinics compared with 'standard' antenatal care for women with a multiple pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies with a multiple pregnancy who received antenatal care specifically designed for women with a multiple pregnancy (as defined by the trial authors) with outcomes in controls who received 'standard' antenatal care (as defined by the trial authors). Two of the review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Both review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We graded the quality of the evidence using GRADEpro software. Findings were based on the results of a single study with some design limitations.Data were available from one study involving 162 women with a multiple pregnancy. For the only reported primary outcome, perinatal mortality, we are uncertain whether specialised antenatal clinics makes any difference compared to standard care (risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 4.03; 324 infants, very low quality evidence). Women receiving specialised antenatal care were significantly more likely to birth by caesarean section (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.81; 162 women, moderate quality evidence). Data were not reported in the study on the following primary outcomes: small-for-gestational age, very preterm birth or maternal death. There were no differences identified between specialised antenatal care and standard care for other secondary outcomes examined: postnatal depression (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.20; 133 women, very low quality evidence), breastfeeding (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.68; 123 women, very low quality evidence), stillbirth (RR 0.68; 0.12 to 4.04) or neonatal death (RR 2.05; 95% CI 0.19 to 22.39) (324 infants). There is currently limited information available from randomised controlled trials to assess the role of 'specialised' antenatal clinics for women with a multiple pregnancy compared with 'standard' antenatal care in improving maternal and infant health outcomes. The value of 'specialised' multiple pregnancy clinics in improving health outcomes for women and their infants requires evaluation in appropriately powered and designed randomised controlled trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 227 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 22%
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 59 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 13%
Psychology 16 7%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 66 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 20 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,148,661
of 20,532,457 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,764
of 12,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,023
of 300,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,532,457 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 12,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 300,699 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 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.