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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Iodised salt and iodine supplements for prenatal and postnatal growth: a rapid scoping of existing systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12937-015-0079-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica Farebrother, Celeste E. Naude, Liesl Nicol, Maria Andersson, Michael B. Zimmermann |
| Abstract |
Iodine deficiency can adversely affect child development including stunted growth. However, the effect of iodine supplementation or fortification on prenatal and postnatal growth in children (<18 years) is unclear. We identified the potential need for a systematic review to contribute to the evidence base in this area. To avoid duplication and inform the need for a new systematic review and its protocol, we undertook a rapid scoping review of existing systematic reviews investigating the effect of iodised salt and iodine supplements on growth and other iodine-related outcomes. We searched TRIP and Epistemokinos (latest search date 15 December 2014). All English language systematic reviews reporting on the effect of iodine supplementation or fortification in any form, dose or regimen on any iodine-related health outcomes (including but not limited to growth) were included. Eligible systematic reviews could include experimental or observational studies in pregnant or lactating women or children to age 18. We tabulated the extracted data to capture the scope of questions addressed, including: author, publication year, most recent search date, participants, pre-specified treatment/exposure and comparator, pre-specified outcomes, outcomes relevant to our question and number and type of studies included. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR. Nine hundred and seventy-six records were screened and 10 reviews included. Most studies were of moderate methodological quality. Outcomes included assessments of thyroid function, iodine deficiency disorders, mental development and growth. Populations studied included pregnant women, preterm infants and children into adulthood. Most reviews looked at direct iodine supplementation or fortification, though some reviews considered iodine status, including the relationship between iodine intake and iodine biomarkers. Although five reviews pre-specified inclusion of growth outcomes, none provided synthesised evidence on the effects of iodine supplementation or fortification on prenatal and postnatal somatic growth. Our rapid scoping review demonstrates a gap in the evidence base with no existing, up-to-date systematic reviews on the effects of all forms of iodine supplementation/fortification in all of the relevant population groups on relevant growth and growth-related outcomes. A new systematic review examining this question will assist in addressing this gap. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Costa Rica | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Nepal | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 173 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 16% |
| Researcher | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 38 | 21% |
| Unknown | 52 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Unknown | 62 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,931,176
of 23,666,535 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#779
of 1,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,544
of 268,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#27
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 268,173 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.