↓ Skip to main content

Preventing pre-eclampsia - are dietary factors the key?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
weibo
1 weibo user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Preventing pre-eclampsia - are dietary factors the key?
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0176-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie M Dodd, Cecelia O’Brien, Rosalie M Grivell

Abstract

Pre-eclampsia is a common pregnancy related condition, which contributes significantly both to maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. The precise pathophysiology of pre-eclampsia is uncertain, and the development of effective preventive strategies remains elusive. Schoenaker and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting dietary intake and dietary patterns. The findings indicated that women with a low dietary calcium intake were more likely to be diagnosed with gestational hypertension, while there was a suggestion (although not statistically significant) of a beneficial effect of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables on risk of pre-eclampsia. This is in contrast to the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials in pregnancy evaluating calcium supplementation and anti-oxidant vitamin C and E supplementation. The validity of any systematic review is reliant on both the underlying methodology and the quality of each of the included studies; the review by Schoenaker and colleagues is limited by the observational nature of the included studies.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/157/abstract.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 23%
Student > Bachelor 21 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 27 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 25 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,527,224
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,626
of 3,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,430
of 254,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#39
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 254,604 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 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.