↓ Skip to main content

Hearing Disorders in Congenital Toxoplasmosis: A Literature Review

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 254)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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.
Title
Hearing Disorders in Congenital Toxoplasmosis: A Literature Review
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, August 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1605377
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camila Corrêa, Luciana Maximino, Silke Weber

Abstract

Introduction  Several studies show correlations between congenital toxoplasmosis and hearing loss, with a broad diversity of levels of hearing loss and specifications of hearing disorders. Objective  To describe the studies found in the literature regarding hearing disorders in congenital toxoplasmosis. Data Synthesis  A literature review was conducted on the Lilacs, SciELO, PubMed and Scopus databases by combining the following keywords: congenital toxoplasmosis and hearing . Based on this search strategy, 152 papers were found, the majority published on the Scopus and PubMed databases from 1958 to 2015. After the application of the inclusion criteria, 8 articles published between 1980 and 2015 were included in the present study. Conclusion  This review showed a moderate evidence of the association between hearing disorders and congenital toxoplasmosis, which is characterized by sensorineural hearing loss. However, there are gaps in the description of the specific characteristics of the type and level of hearing loss, or of other possible disorders involved in the auditory processing.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 18 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,270,134
of 21,468,133 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#31
of 254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,858
of 243,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,468,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 243,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 99% of its contemporaries.