↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Management of reported decreased fetal movements for improving pregnancy outcomes

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Management of reported decreased fetal movements for improving pregnancy outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009148.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

G Justus Hofmeyr, Natalia Novikova

Abstract

Clinical observations indicate that mothers commonly perceive a reduction in, or absence of, the baby's movements for some days preceding a baby's death. For this reason, fetal movement monitoring is advised by caregivers and used spontaneously by mothers to assess the baby's well-being. However, it is possible that the harmful effects of interventions may outweigh the benefits of such testing. Evidence of effectiveness of fetal movement screening to improve outcomes is limited, though indirect evidence suggests a potential benefit. A secondary question is whether any specific management response to perceived decreased fetal movements (DFM) improves clinical outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 251 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 55 21%
Unknown 62 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 11%
Psychology 22 9%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Unspecified 9 4%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 67 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,721,302
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,672
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,026
of 174,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 174,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.