↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Combined spinal-epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2019
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
Combined spinal-epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008100.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott W Simmons, Alicia T Dennis, Allan M Cyna, Matthew G Richardson, Matthew R Bright

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 21%
Student > Master 18 13%
Other 14 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 45 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,256,417
of 22,039,250 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,853
of 12,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,981
of 296,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,039,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 296,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.