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 |
Characteristics of Dysphagia in Infants with Microcephaly Caused by Congenital Zika Virus Infection, Brazil, 2015 - Volume 23, Number 8—August 2017 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2308.170354 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariana C. Leal, Vanessa van der Linden, Thiago P. Bezerra, Luciana de Valois, Adriana C.G. Borges, Margarida M.C. Antunes, Kátia G. Brandt, Catharina X. Moura, Laura C. Rodrigues, Coeli R. Ximenes |
| Abstract |
We summarize the characteristics of dysphagia in 9 infants in Brazil with microcephaly caused by congenital Zika virus infection. The Schedule for Oral Motor Assessment, fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, and the videofluoroscopic swallowing study were used as noninstrumental and instrumental assessments. All infants had a degree of neurologic damage and showed abnormalities in the oral phase. Of the 9 infants, 8 lacked oral and upper respiratory tract sensitivity, leading to delays in initiation of the pharyngeal phase of swallowing. Those delays, combined with marked oral dysfunction, increased the risk for aspiration of food, particularly liquid foods. Dysphagia resulting from congenital Zika virus syndrome microcephaly can develop in infants >3 months of age and is severe. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 11% |
| Scientists | 2 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 156 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Researcher | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 19% |
| Unknown | 44 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 53 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,421,467
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#1,613
of 9,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,925
of 326,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#21
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 9,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 326,133 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.