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 |
Clinical impact of the disposable ventouse iCup® versus a metallic vacuum cup: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12884-015-0771-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Véronique Equy, Sandra David-Tchouda, Michel Dreyfus, Didier Riethmuller, Françoise Vendittelli, Victoire Cabaud, Bruno Langer, Jennifer Margier, Jean-Luc Bosson, Jean-Patrick Schaal |
| Abstract |
Assisted vaginal delivery by vacuum extraction is frequent. Metallic resterilizible metallic vacuum cups have been routinely used in France. In the last few years a new disposable semi-soft vacuum extraction cup, the iCup, has been introduced. Our objective was to compare maternal and new-born outcomes between this disposable cup and the commonly used Drapier-Faure metallic cup. This was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled open clinical trial performed in the maternity units of five university hospitals and one community hospital in France from October 2009 to February 2013. We included consecutive eligible women with a singleton gestation of at least 37 weeks who required vacuum assisted delivery. Women were randomized to vacuum extraction using the iCup or usual Drapier-Faure metallic cup. The primary outcome was a composite criterion including both the risk of cup dysfunction and the most frequent maternal and neonatal harms: the use of other instruments after attempted vacuum extraction, caesarean section after attempted vacuum extraction, three detachments of the cup, caput succedaneum, cephalohaematoma, episiotomy and perineal tears. 335 women were randomized to the disposable cup and 333 to extraction using the metallic cup. There was no significant difference between the two groups for the primary outcome. However, failed instrumental delivery was more frequent in the disposable cup group, mainly due to detachment: 35.6 % vs 7.1 %, p < 0.0001. Conversely, perineal tears were more frequent in the metallic cup group, especially third or fourth grade perineal tears: 1.7 % versus 5.0 %, p = 0.003. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning post-partum haemorrhage, transfer to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or serious adverse events. While the disposable cup had more detachments and extraction failures than the standard metallic cup, this innovative disposable device had the advantage of fewer perineal injuries. www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01058200 on Jan. 27 2010. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 22 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
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 16 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,702,512
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,827
of 4,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,247
of 390,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#56
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,191 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 390,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.