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 |
Enhanced recovery after elective caesarean: a rapid review of clinical protocols, and an umbrella review of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12884-017-1265-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ellena Corso, Daniel Hind, Daniel Beever, Gordon Fuller, Matthew J. Wilson, Ian J. Wrench, Duncan Chambers |
| Abstract |
The rate of elective Caesarean Section (CS) is rising in many countries. Many obstetric units in the UK have either introduced or are planning to introduce enhanced recovery (ER) as a means of reducing length of stay for planned CS. However, to date there has been very little evidence produced regarding the necessary components of ER for the obstetric population. We conducted a rapid review of the composition of published ER pathways for elective CS and undertook an umbrella review of systematic reviews evaluating ER components and pathways in any surgical setting. Pathways were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the National Guideline Clearing House, appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and their components tabulated. Systematic reviews were identified using the Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and appraised using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Two reviewers aggregated summaries of findings for Length of Stay (LoS). Five clinical protocols were identified, involving a total of 25 clinical components; 3/25 components were common to all five pathways (early oral intake, mobilization and removal of urinary catheter). AGREE II scores were generally low. Systematic reviews of single components found that minimally invasive Joel-Cohen surgical technique, early catheter removal and post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis reduced LoS after CS most significantly by around half to 1 and a half days. Ten meta-analyses of multi-component Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) packages demonstrated reductions in LoS of between 1 and 4 days. The quality of evidence was mostly low or moderate. Further research is needed to develop, using formal methods, and evaluate pathways for enhanced recovery in elective CS. Appropriate quality improvement packages are needed to optimise their implementation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 33% |
| Ireland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 204 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 11% |
| Other | 21 | 10% |
| Researcher | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 39 | 19% |
| Unknown | 71 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Unknown | 78 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,546,001
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,516
of 4,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,672
of 309,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#44
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 309,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.