↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound Evidence of Early Fetal Growth Restriction after Maternal Malaria Infection

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Ultrasound Evidence of Early Fetal Growth Restriction after Maternal Malaria Infection
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0031411
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus J. Rijken, Aris T. Papageorghiou, Supan Thiptharakun, Suporn Kiricharoen, Saw Lu Mu Dwell, Jacher Wiladphaingern, Mupawjay Pimanpanarak, Stephen H. Kennedy, François Nosten, Rose McGready

Abstract

Intermittent preventive treatment (IPT), the main strategy to prevent malaria and reduce anaemia and low birthweight, focuses on the second half of pregnancy. However, intrauterine growth restriction may occur earlier in pregnancy. The aim of this study was to measure the effects of malaria in the first half of pregnancy by comparing the fetal biparietal diameter (BPD) of infected and uninfected women whose pregnancies had been accurately dated by crown rump length (CRL) before 14 weeks of gestation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 116 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 20%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 31 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,340,745
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,441
of 225,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,077
of 260,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#529
of 3,439 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 260,259 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,439 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.