↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
3 policy sources
4 tweeters
3 Wikipedia pages


144 Dimensions

Readers on

524 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004660.pub3
Pubmed ID

Tina Lavender, G Justus Hofmeyr, James P Neilson, Carol Kingdon, Gillian ML Gyte


Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and a greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. The differences in neonatal physiology following vaginal and caesarean births are thought to have implications for the infant, with caesarean section potentially increasing the risk of compromised health in both the short and the long term. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 524 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 511 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 92 18%
Student > Master 85 16%
Researcher 54 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 6%
Other 105 20%
Unknown 113 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 193 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 14%
Social Sciences 30 6%
Psychology 24 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 4%
Other 53 10%
Unknown 133 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 06 January 2020.
All research outputs
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 156,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 156,709 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.