↓ Skip to main content

Creatine for women in pregnancy for neuroprotection of the fetus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Creatine for women in pregnancy for neuroprotection of the fetus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010846.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hayley Dickinson, Emily Bain, Dominic Wilkinson, Philippa Middleton, Caroline A Crowther, David W Walker

Abstract

Creatine is an amino acid derivative and, when phosphorylated (phosphocreatine), is involved in replenishing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) via the creatine kinase reaction. Cells obtain creatine from a diet rich in fish, meat, or dairy and by endogenous synthesis from the amino acids arginine, glycine, and methionine in an approximate 50:50 ratio. Animal studies have shown that creatine may provide fetal neuroprotection when given to the mother through her diet in pregnancy. It is important to assess whether maternally administered creatine in human pregnancy (at times of known, suspected, or potential fetal compromise) may offer neuroprotection to the fetus and may accordingly reduce the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, such as cerebral palsy and associated impairments and disabilities arising from fetal brain injury.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 20%
Unspecified 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 33%
Unspecified 19 22%
Psychology 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Other 18 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,288,378
of 12,948,675 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,820
of 10,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,544
of 293,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#110
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,948,675 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 10,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 293,556 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 255 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.