↓ Skip to main content

Can Zika Account for the Missing Babies?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Can Zika Account for the Missing Babies?
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00317
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flávio Codeço Coelho, Margaret Armstrong, Valeria Saraceni, Cristina Lemos

Abstract

The Zika virus (ZIKV) spread rapidly in Brazil in 2015 and 2016. Rio de Janeiro was among the Brazilian cities which were hit the hardest, with more that a hundred thousand confirmed cases up to the end of 2016. Given the severity of the neurological damage caused by ZIKV on fetuses, we wondered whether it would also cause an increase in the number of miscarriages, especially very early ones. As early miscarriages are unlikely to be recorded as a health event, this effect-if it occurred-would only show up as a reduction in the number of live births. In this article, we show that there was a 15% drop in live births between September and December 2016 compared with the previous year, and that this sharp drop from epidemiological week 33 onward is strongly correlated with the number of recorded cases of Zika about 40 weeks earlier. We postulate that ZIKV is directly responsible for this drop in the birth rate. Further work is required to ascertain whether other factors such as the fear of having a microcephaly baby or the economic crisis are having a significant effect.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 28%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 24%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Mathematics 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#12,764,378
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,608
of 10,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,508
of 438,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#40
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 438,545 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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 54% of its contemporaries.