| Title |
Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007372.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zarko Alfirevic, Gillian Ml Gyte, Vicky Nogueira Pileggi, Rachel Plachcinski, Alfred O Osoti, Elaine M Finucane |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 25% |
| Germany | 2 | 13% |
| Colombia | 2 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 250 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 18 | 7% |
| Researcher | 15 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 50 | 20% |
| Unknown | 105 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 18 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Unknown | 111 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,962,851
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,151
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,161
of 426,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 426,385 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.