↓ Skip to main content

Risk and preventive factors for cot death in The Netherlands, a low-incidence country

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, July 1998
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
patent
13 patents
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Risk and preventive factors for cot death in The Netherlands, a low-incidence country
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, July 1998
DOI 10.1007/s004310050911
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. P. L'Hoir, A. C. Engelberts, G. T. J. van Well, S. McClelland, P. Westers, T. Dandachli, G. J. Mellenbergh, W. H. G. Wolters, J. Huber

Abstract

In the Netherlands an 18 months case control study into cot death was undertaken as part of the European Concerted Action (ECAS) on sudden infant death syndrome to determine the relative risk of prone sleeping and other sleep practices. Physicians in the Netherlands were asked to report to the study centre all sudden and unexpected deaths of children between 1 week and 2 years of age. Non cot death cases were deleted from further analysis after a consensus was reached by three pathologists, not primarily involved in the post mortem diagnosis. A positive response of families was achieved in 91% of cases registered in the Central Bureau of Statistics. The study comprised 73 cot deaths and 146 controls, two for each case and matched for date of birth. All families were visited at home for completion of a questionnaire. The cot death rate has dropped considerably over the past 10 years after the recommendations on supine sleeping to a low of 0.26 per 1000 live born infants. In addition to the ECAS objective, we wanted to establish whether previously found risk factors are still valid in the present situation or that new factors might have emerged, some of them possibly protective.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Other 3 16%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Psychology 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,798,287
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#669
of 4,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,475
of 32,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 32,510 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.