| Title |
Oral cleft prevention program (OCPP)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2431-12-184 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
George L Wehby, Norman Goco, Danilo Moretti-Ferreira, Temis Felix, Antonio Richieri-Costa, Carla Padovani, Fernanda Queiros, Camilla Vila Nova Guimaraes, Rui Pereira, Steve Litavecz, Tyler Hartwell, Hrishikesh Chakraborty, Lorette Javois, Jeffrey C Murray |
| Abstract |
Oral clefts are one of the most common birth defects with significant medical, psychosocial, and economic ramifications. Oral clefts have a complex etiology with genetic and environmental risk factors. There are suggestive results for decreased risks of cleft occurrence and recurrence with folic acid supplements taken at preconception and during pregnancy with a stronger evidence for higher than lower doses in preventing recurrence. Yet previous studies have suffered from considerable design limitations particularly non-randomization into treatment. There is also well-documented effectiveness for folic acid in preventing neural tube defect occurrence at 0.4 mg and recurrence with 4 mg. Given the substantial burden of clefting on the individual and the family and the supportive data for the effectiveness of folic acid supplementation as well as its low cost, a randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of high versus low dose folic acid for prevention of cleft recurrence is warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| Argentina | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 141 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 42% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 36 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 July 2020.
All research outputs
#4,406,957
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#803
of 3,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,992
of 282,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#14
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 282,236 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.