The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | 29% |
United Kingdom | 5 | 29% |
Australia | 2 | 12% |
Unknown | 5 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 76% |
Scientists | 2 | 12% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 319 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 3 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
Canada | 2 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Colombia | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Greece | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 307 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 58 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 54 | 17% |
Researcher | 31 | 10% |
Other | 25 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 8% |
Other | 73 | 23% |
Unknown | 54 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 34% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 77 | 24% |
Psychology | 23 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 13 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
Other | 27 | 8% |
Unknown | 61 | 19% |
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 15 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,182,644
of 26,316,370 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,275
of 13,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,513
of 261,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,316,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 261,885 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 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 90% of its contemporaries.