↓ Skip to main content

Triagem auditiva de crianças com síndrome congênita pelo vírus Zika atendidas em Fortaleza, Ceará, 2016

Overview of attention for article published in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 249)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Triagem auditiva de crianças com síndrome congênita pelo vírus Zika atendidas em Fortaleza, Ceará, 2016
Published in
Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, November 2018
DOI 10.5123/s1679-49742018000400002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebeka Ferreira Pequeno Leite, Marinisi Sales Aragão Santos, Erlane Marques Ribeiro, André Luiz Santos Pessoa, Doris Ruthy Lewis, Célia Maria Giacheti, Luciano Pamplona de Góes Cavalcanti

Abstract

to describe the results of hearing screening performed in children with Congenital Zika Virus Syndrome (CZS) in Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. this was a descriptive cross-sectional study involving children with CZS receiving health care in Fortaleza, 2016; the hearing screening tests performed were immittance audiometry, transient otoacoustic emissions (TOAE), acoustic reflexes, and cochleopalpebral reflex (CPR). The study included 45 children with an average age of 10 months. 44 of them underwent tympanometric screening, with 16 of these having the right ear within the normal range and 22 having the left ear within the normal range. Among the 43 children evaluated by TOAE, 30 "passed" in both ears, nine "refered" in both ears and four "refered" just in ear; 13/43 "refered" and needed to repeat screening. 43 children evaluated by CPR, 37 showed responses. most of the children evaluated had completed cochlear function and middle ear results refer in compatible with their age range.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 28%
Student > Bachelor 7 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Researcher 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#8,776,503
of 15,045,842 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
#46
of 249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,546
of 382,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,045,842 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 249 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 382,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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