↓ Skip to main content

Congenital Zika virus syndrome in Brazil: a case series of the first 1501 livebirths with complete investigation

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, June 2016
Altmetric Badge
481

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
516 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
780 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Congenital Zika virus syndrome in Brazil: a case series of the first 1501 livebirths with complete investigation
Published in
The Lancet, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30902-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanny V A França, Lavinia Schuler-Faccini, Wanderson K Oliveira, Claudio M P Henriques, Eduardo H Carmo, Vaneide D Pedi, Marília L Nunes, Marcia C Castro, Suzanne Serruya, Mariângela F Silveira, Fernando C Barros, Cesar G Victora

Abstract

In November, 2015, an epidemic of microcephaly was reported in Brazil, which was later attributed to congenital Zika virus infection. 7830 suspected cases had been reported to the Brazilian Ministry of Health by June 4, 2016, but little is known about their characteristics. We aimed to describe these newborn babies in terms of clinical findings, anthropometry, and survival. We reviewed all 1501 liveborn infants for whom investigation by medical teams at State level had been completed as of Feb 27, 2016, and classified suspected cases into five categories based on neuroimaging and laboratory results for Zika virus and other relevant infections. Definite cases had laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection; highly probable cases presented specific neuroimaging findings, and negative laboratory results for other congenital infections; moderately probable cases had specific imaging findings but other infections could not be ruled out; somewhat probable cases had imaging findings, but these were not reported in detail by the local teams; all other newborn babies were classified as discarded cases. Head circumference by gestational age was assessed with InterGrowth standards. First week mortality and history of rash were provided by the State medical teams. Between Nov 19, 2015, and Feb 27, 2015, investigations were completed for 1501 suspected cases reported to the Brazilian Ministry of Health, of whom 899 were discarded. Of the remainder 602 cases, 76 were definite, 54 highly probable, 181 moderately probable, and 291 somewhat probable of congenital Zika virus syndrome. Clinical, anthropometric, and survival differences were small among the four groups. Compared with these four groups, the 899 discarded cases had larger head circumferences (mean Z scores -1·54 vs -3·13, difference 1·58 [95% CI 1·45-1·72]); lower first-week mortality (14 per 1000 vs 51 per 1000; rate ratio 0·28 [95% CI 0·14-0·56]); and were less likely to have a history of rash during pregnancy (20·7% vs 61·4%, ratio 0·34 [95% CI 0·27-0·42]). Rashes in the third trimester of pregnancy were associated with brain abnormalities despite normal sized heads. One in five definite or probable cases presented head circumferences in the normal range (above -2 SD below the median of the InterGrowth standard) and for one third of definite and probable cases there was no history of a rash during pregnancy. The peak of the epidemic occurred in late November, 2015. Zika virus congenital syndrome is a new teratogenic disease. Because many definite or probable cases present normal head circumference values and their mothers do not report having a rash, screening criteria must be revised in order to detect all affected newborn babies. Brazilian Ministry of Health, Pan American Health Organization, and Wellcome Trust.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 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 780 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 13 2%
Netherlands 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 761 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 142 18%
Student > Bachelor 107 14%
Researcher 98 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 61 8%
Other 156 20%
Unknown 139 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 251 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 82 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 45 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 6%
Other 126 16%
Unknown 175 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 481. 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 11 July 2023.
All research outputs
#56,310
of 25,757,133 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#990
of 42,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,153
of 368,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#20
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,757,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.1. 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 368,547 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 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 94% of its contemporaries.