↓ Skip to main content

Subnotificação de sífilis em gestantes, congênita e adquirida entre povos indígenas em Mato Grosso do Sul, 2011-2014*

Overview of attention for article published in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Subnotificação de sífilis em gestantes, congênita e adquirida entre povos indígenas em Mato Grosso do Sul, 2011-2014*
Published in
Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, July 2017
DOI 10.5123/s1679-49742017000300008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zuleica da Silva Tiago, Renata Palópoli Picoli, Samara Vilas-Boas Graeff, Rivaldo Venâncio da Cunha, Rui Arantes, Zuleica da Silva Tiago, Renata Palópoli Picoli, Samara Vilas-Boas Graeff, Rivaldo Venâncio da Cunha, Rui Arantes

Abstract

to describe the distribution, incidence, and underreporting of syphilis among indigenous peoples from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. descriptive study performed with secondary data of the Information System for Notifiable Diseases (Sinan) and of the Special Indigenous Sanitary District of Mato Grosso do Sul (DSEI-MS), from 2011 to 2014; the data from both sources were compared to identify underreporting. the highest incidence rates of syphilis in pregnant women were observed in 2014 (41.1/1,000 live births) and of congenital syphilis, in 2013 (10.7/1,000 live births); the highest numbers of underreporting of cases were for syphilis in pregnant women on Sinan (45/79), of congenital syphilis at DSEI-MS (8/17) in 2014, and of acquired syphilis on Sinan in 2011 and 2013 (5/9 and 10/18, respectively). syphilis has a high incidence; underreporting hides the extent of the disease in indigenous peoples from Mato Grosso do Sul.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 18 21%
Student > Bachelor 18 21%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Student > Master 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 18 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 26 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#9,968,545
of 15,650,802 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
#78
of 252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,217
of 280,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,650,802 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 252 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 280,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them