↓ Skip to main content

Congenital Cytomegalovirus Reference Material: A Content Analysis of Coverage and Accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal and Child Health Journal, April 2013
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Congenital Cytomegalovirus Reference Material: A Content Analysis of Coverage and Accuracy
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10995-013-1275-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosemary Thackeray, Allison Wright, Katherine Chipman

Abstract

Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the leading cause of birth defects and developmental delays in the United States. However, only 13-22% of women in the United States have heard of CMV. This research assessed (1) the quantity and accuracy of CMV information included on pregnancy-related websites and reference books, and (2) whether CMV information was included less often than information about other birth defects or infections. A content analysis of 37 pregnancy reference books and seven websites was conducted. The data collection instrument represented categories describing CMV, transmission, and prevention. CMV subject matter experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed the instrument. Each book and website was coded independently by two different coders. Twenty-one reference books and seven websites included CMV content. CMV was less likely to be included as a topic than other infections or birth defects. There were fewer sentences about CMV than toxoplasmosis, Down syndrome, or HIV. Book length was associated with increased likelihood of including CMV. How to prevent CMV transmission was discussed only half the time. Though limited, nearly all the CMV information was accurate. Pregnancy-related reference books and websites contain limited CMV information. Books are less likely to include CMV as compared to other infections and birth defects. Most of the CMV information is accurate. There is inadequate coverage given to prevention of CMV transmission, which may contribute to CMV remaining a continued leading cause of birth defects in the United States.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Psychology 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,449,181
of 24,878,531 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#127
of 2,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,246
of 198,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,878,531 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 2,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 198,321 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.