↓ Skip to main content

Maternal Caffeine Intake and Intrauterine Growth Retardation

Overview of attention for article published in Epidemiology, July 2001
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
38 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.
Article details
Title
Maternal Caffeine Intake and Intrauterine Growth Retardation
Published in
Epidemiology, July 2001
DOI 10.1097/00001648-200107000-00015
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study estimates the effect of maternal caffeine consumption throughout pregnancy on fetal growth. We studied 2,714 women who delivered a liveborn infant between 1988 and 1991. Detailed information regarding coffee, tea, and soda drinking during the first and third trimesters of pregnancy was obtained. Average caffeine intake during month 1 of pregnancy was higher than for month 7 (72.4 vs 54.0 mg per day). Consumption of >300 mg caffeine per day during month 1 (adjusted odds ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval = 0.44--1.90) and during month 7 (adjusted odds ratio = 1.00; 95% confidence interval = 0.37--2.70) was not associated with intrauterine growth retardation. There was little evidence for any effect modification due to cigarette smoking on the caffeine associations. This study provides evidence that antenatal caffeine consumption has no adverse effect on fetal growth.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 26%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 09 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,494,446
of 27,773,453 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology
#345
of 3,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,158
of 46,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,773,453 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 3,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 46,124 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them