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 |
Chewing gum for intestinal function recovery after caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12884-017-1286-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zunjia Wen, Meifen Shen, Chao Wu, Jianping Ding, Binbin Mei |
| Abstract |
Gum chewing has been reported to enhance the intestinal function recovery after caesarean section, current perspectives and practice guidelines vary widely on the use of gum chewing, more studies on the role of gum chewing after caesarean section are needed. We performed a comprehensive, systematic meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of gum chewing after caesarean section. Studies were identified by searching EMBASE et al database (until June 30, 2016). Summary odd ratios or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome with fixed- or random-effects model. Ten RCTs with a total of 1659 women were included in our meta-analysis. Gum chewing provided significant benefits in reducing the time to first passage of flatus, first defecation, first bowel sound, first bowel movement and the length of hospital stay, but not in the time to first feeling of hunger. Gun chewing hastens the intestinal function recovery after caesarean section and offers a safe and inexpensive option. High-quality and larger-scale RCTs are still warranted to clarify the role of gum chewing in intestinal function recovery after caesarean section. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 16 | 55% |
| United States | 5 | 17% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 21% |
| Scientists | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 38 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 16% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 1% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 37 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,441,907
of 24,762,960 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#318
of 4,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,165
of 315,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#11
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,762,960 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 315,395 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.