↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
289 Mendeley
Title
Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009290.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A Smith, Kate M Levett, Carmel T Collins, Leanne Jones

Abstract

Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour, and this may contribute towards the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence supporting the use of manual healing methods including massage and reflexology for pain management in labour.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Spain 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 277 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 20%
Student > Bachelor 49 17%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Postgraduate 24 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Other 68 24%
Unknown 35 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 67 23%
Psychology 24 8%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 26 9%
Unknown 42 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 29 September 2019.
All research outputs
#686,770
of 17,349,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,735
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,918
of 130,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,349,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 130,351 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 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.