↓ Skip to main content

Chewing gum for intestinal function recovery after caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
16 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
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.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 16 February 2019.
All research outputs
#903,925
of 17,604,218 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#200
of 3,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,453
of 275,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,604,218 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 3,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. 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 275,307 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them