You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Professionals’ views of fetal monitoring during labour: a systematic review and thematic analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2393-12-166 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valerie Smith, Cecily M Begley, Mike Clarke, Declan Devane |
| Abstract |
Current recommendations do not support the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for low risk women during labour, yet EFM remains widespread in clinical practice. Consideration of the views, perspectives and experiences of individuals directly concerned with EFM application may be beneficial for identifying barriers to and facilitators for implementing evidence-based maternity care. The aim of this paper is to offer insight and understanding, through systematic review and thematic analysis, of research into professionals' views on fetal heart rate monitoring during labour. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 25% |
| Unknown | 27 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 32 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,952,441
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#821
of 4,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,111
of 281,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#15
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 281,773 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.