| Title |
Zika Virus Infection during Pregnancy and Effects on Early Childhood Development, French Polynesia, 2013–2016 - Volume 24, Number 10—October 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2410.172079 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lorenzo Subissi, Timothée Dub, Marianne Besnard, Teheipuaura Mariteragi-Helle, Tuxuan Nhan, Delphine Lutringer-Magnin, Philippe Barboza, Céline Gurry, Pauline Brindel, Eric J. Nilles, David Baud, Angela Merianos, Didier Musso, Judith R. Glynn, Gilles Dupuis, Van-Mai Cao-Lormeau, Marine Giard, Henri-Pierre Mallet |
| Abstract |
Congenital Zika virus syndrome consists of a large spectrum of neurologic abnormalities seen in infants infected with Zika virus in utero. However, little is known about the effects of Zika virus intrauterine infection on the neurocognitive development of children born without birth defects. Using a case-control study design, we investigated the temporal association of a cluster of congenital defects with Zika virus infection. In a nested study, we also assessed the early childhood development of children recruited in the initial study as controls who were born without known birth defects,. We found evidence for an association of congenital defects with both maternal Zika virus seropositivity (time of infection unknown) and symptomatic Zika virus infection during pregnancy. Although the early childhood development assessment found no excess burden of developmental delay associated with maternal Zika virus infection, larger, longer-term studies are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 20% |
| Unknown | 41 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 50 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,954,762
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#2,144
of 9,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,991
of 355,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#22
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 355,699 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 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.