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 |
Maternal smoking during pregnancy and birth defects in children: a systematic review with meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0102-311x00115813 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dilvania Nicoletti, Leilane Droppa Appel, Pedro Siedersberger Neto, Gabriel Waihrich Guimarães, Linjie Zhang |
| Abstract |
This systematic review aimed to investigate the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and birth defects in children. We performed an electronic search of observational studies in the databases ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April 2010), LILACS and SciELO. We included 188 studies with a total of 13,564,914 participants (192,655 cases). Significant positive associations were found between maternal smoking and birth defects in the following body systems: cardiovascular (OR: 1.11; 95%CI: 1.03-1.19), digestive (OR: 1.18; 95%CI: 1.07-1.30), musculoskeletal (OR: 1.27; 95%CI: 1.16-1.39) and face and neck (OR: 1.28; 95%CI: 1.19-1.37). The strength of association between maternal smoking and birth defects measured by the OR (95%CI) is significantly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked daily (χ2 = 12.1; df = 2; p = 0.002). In conclusion, maternal smoking during pregnancy is associated with congenital malformations in children and this association is dose-dependent. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,147,698
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#55
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,705
of 369,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 369,146 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.