| Title |
Non‐clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005528.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Innie Chen, Newton Opiyo, Emma Tavender, Sameh Mortazhejri, Tamara Rader, Jennifer Petkovic, Sharlini Yogasingam, Monica Taljaard, Sugandha Agarwal, Malinee Laopaiboon, Jason Wasiak, Suthit Khunpradit, Pisake Lumbiganon, Russell L Gruen, Ana Pilar Betran |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 17% |
| United States | 4 | 11% |
| Mexico | 3 | 8% |
| Colombia | 2 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 6% |
| Peru | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 78% |
| Scientists | 5 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1145 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 159 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 121 | 11% |
| Researcher | 118 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 53 | 5% |
| Other | 186 | 16% |
| Unknown | 437 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 243 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 168 | 15% |
| Psychology | 58 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 53 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 16 | 1% |
| Other | 127 | 11% |
| Unknown | 481 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 26 August 2023.
All research outputs
#531,270
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#931
of 13,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,312
of 354,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 354,472 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 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.