↓ Skip to main content

Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008549.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela E Carberry, Adrienne Gordon, Diana M Bond, Jon Hyett, Camille H Raynes-Greenow, Heather E Jeffery

Abstract

Fetal growth restriction is defined as failure to reach growth potential and considered one of the major complications of pregnancy. These infants are often, although not universally, small for gestational age (SGA). SGA is defined as a weight less than a specified percentile (usually the 10th percentile). Identification of SGA infants is important because these infants are at increased risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Screening for SGA is a challenge for all maternity care providers and current methods of clinical assessment fail to detect many infants who are SGA. Large observational studies suggest that customised growth charts may be better able to differentiate between constitutional and pathologic smallness. Customised charts adjust for physiological variables such as maternal weight and height, ethnicity and parity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 136 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 21%
Student > Bachelor 28 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 17 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 19%
Psychology 11 8%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 22 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,403,309
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,898
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,670
of 193,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 193,093 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.