↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
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 (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
Title
Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009107.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheena Derry, Sebastian Straube, R Andrew Moore, Heather Hancock, Sally L Collins

Abstract

Intracutaneous or subcutaneous injection of sterile water is rapidly gaining popularity as a method of pain relief in labour and it is therefore essential that it is properly evaluated. Adequate analgesia in labour is important to women worldwide. Sterile water injection is inexpensive, requires basic equipment, and appears to have few side effects. It is purported to work for labour pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 291 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 18%
Student > Bachelor 46 16%
Researcher 40 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 63 21%
Unknown 49 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 19%
Psychology 20 7%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Neuroscience 7 2%
Other 25 8%
Unknown 60 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 22 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,678,717
of 18,844,683 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,015
of 11,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,496
of 229,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#156
of 498 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,844,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 229,854 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 498 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 68% of its contemporaries.