↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intramuscular versus intravenous prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
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 (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
Intramuscular versus intravenous prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009332.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olufemi T Oladapo, Babasola O Okusanya, Edgardo Abalos

Abstract

There is general agreement that oxytocin given either through the intramuscular or intravenous route is effective in reducing postpartum blood loss. However, it is unclear whether the subtle differences between the mode of action of these routes have any effect on maternal and infant outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of oxytocin administered intramuscularly or intravenously for prophylactic management of the third stage of labour after vaginal birth. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 September 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised trials comparing intramuscular with intravenous oxytocin for prophylactic management of the third stage of labour after vaginal birth. We excluded quasi-randomised trials. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Three studies with 1306 women are included in the review and compared intramuscular versus intravenous oxytocin administered just after the birth of the anterior shoulder or soon after the birth of the baby. Studies were carried out in hospital settings in Turkey and Thailand and recruited women with singleton, term pregnancies. Overall, the included studies were at moderate risk of bias: none of the studies provided clear information on allocation concealment or attempted to blind staff or women. For GRADE outcomes the quality of the evidence was very low, with downgrading due to study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates.Only one study reported severe postpartum haemorrhage (blood loss 1000 mL or more) and showed no clear difference between the intramuscular and intravenous oxytocin groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.04; 256 women; very low-quality evidence). No woman required hysterectomy in either group in one study (no estimable data, very low-quality evidence), and in another study one woman in each group received a blood transfusion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.82; 256 women; very low-quality evidence). Other important outcomes (maternal death, hypotension, maternal dissatisfaction with the intervention and neonatal jaundice) were not reported by any of the included studies. There were no clear differences between groups for other prespecified secondary outcomes reported (postpartum haemorrhage 500 mL or more, use of additional uterotonics, retained placenta or manual removal of the placenta). Very low-quality evidence indicates no clear difference between the comparative benefits and risks of intramuscular and intravenous oxytocin when given to prevent excessive blood loss after vaginal birth. Appropriately designed randomised trials with adequate sample sizes are needed to assess whether the route of prophylactic oxytocin after vaginal birth affects maternal or infant outcomes. Such studies could be large enough to detect clinically important differences in major side effects that have been reported in observational studies and should also consider the acceptability of the intervention to mothers and providers as important outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 36 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 17%
Social Sciences 11 8%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 46 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,024,946
of 17,697,618 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,646
of 11,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,160
of 284,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,697,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 284,704 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.