↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
96 tweeters
facebook
24 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007238.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sng BL, Leong WL, Zeng Y, Siddiqui FJ, Assam PN, Lim Y, Chan ES, Sia AT, Sng, Ban Leong, Leong, Wan Ling, Zeng, Yanzhi, Siddiqui, Fahad Javaid, Assam, Pryseley N, Lim, Yvonne, Chan, Edwin SY, Sia, Alex T

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 123 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 26 20%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Postgraduate 15 12%
Other 36 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Unspecified 12 9%
Psychology 8 6%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 15 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 143. 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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#88,635
of 12,466,228 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#185
of 8,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,750
of 214,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,466,228 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 214,072 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 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 98% of its contemporaries.