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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A comparison of misoprostol vaginal insert and misoprostol vaginal tablets for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12884-017-1647-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kjersti Engen Marsdal, Ingvil Krarup Sørbye, Lise C. Gaudernack, Mirjam Lukasse |
| Abstract |
Since Misoprostol Vaginal Insert (MVI - Misodel ®) was approved for labor induction in Europe in 2013, to date, no study has been published comparing MVI to Misoprostol vaginal tablets (MVT). The aim of this study, performed as part of a quality improvement project, was to compare the efficacy and safety of 200 μg MVI versus 25 μg MVT for labor induction in nulliparous women. This retrospective cohort study included 171 nulliparous singleton term deliveries induced with MVI (n = 85) versus MVT (n = 86) at Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Norway, from November 2014 to December 2015. Primary outcomes were time from drug administration to delivery in hours and minutes and the rate of cesarean section (CS). Results were adjusted for Bishop Score and pre-induction with balloon catheter. Median time from drug administration to delivery was shorter in the MVI group compared to the MVT group (15 h 43 min versus 19 h 37 min, p = 0.011). Adjusted for confounding factors, mean difference was 6 h 3 min (p = 0.002). The risk of CS was 67% lower in the MVI group compared to the MVT group (11.8% versus 23.3%, OR = 0.33; adjusted 95% CI 0.13-0.81). Adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. In a setting of routine obstetric care, MVI seems to be a more efficient labor induction agent than MVT, and with a lower CS rate and no increase in adverse infant outcomes. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,807,468
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,502
of 4,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,229
of 441,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#49
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 441,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.