| Title |
Expedited versus conservative approaches for vaginal delivery in breech presentation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000082.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G Justus Hofmeyr, Regina Kulier, Helen M West |
| Abstract |
In a vaginal breech birth there may be benefit from rapid delivery of the baby to prevent progressive acidosis. However, this needs to be weighed against the potential trauma of a quick delivery. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of expedited vaginal delivery (breech delivery from umbilicus to delivery of the head within one contraction) on perinatal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised trials of expedited vaginal breech delivery compared with delivery not routinely expedited in women undergoing vaginal breech delivery. Two review authors independently assessed the one identified trial for inclusion.If studies are included in future updates, two review authors will assess risk of bias, extract data and check data for accuracy. No studies were included. There is not enough evidence to evaluate the effects of expedited vaginal breech delivery. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 25% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,473,822
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,951
of 12,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,225
of 264,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#210
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 264,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.