↓ Skip to main content

Microcephaly and Zika virus: a clinical and epidemiological analysis of the current outbreak in Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pediatria, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Microcephaly and Zika virus: a clinical and epidemiological analysis of the current outbreak in Brazil
Published in
Jornal de Pediatria, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jped.2016.02.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magda Lahorgue Nunes, Celia Regina Carlini, Daniel Marinowic, Felipe Kalil Neto, Humberto Holmer Fiori, Marcelo Comerlato Scotta, Pedro Luis Ávila Zanella, Ricardo Bernardi Soder, Jaderson Costa da Costa

Abstract

This study aimed to critically review the literature available regarding the Zika virus (ZikaV) outbreak in Brazil and its possible association with microcephaly cases. Experts from Instituto do Cérebro do Rio Grande do Sul performed a critical (nonsystematic) literature review regarding different aspects of the ZikaV outbreak in Brazil, such as transmission, epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, and its possible association with the increase of microcephaly reports. The PubMed search using the key word "Zika virus" in February 2016 yielded 151 articles. The manuscripts were reviewed, as well as all publications/guidelines from the Brazilian Ministry of Health, World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC - United States). Epidemiological data suggest a temporal association between the increased number of microcephaly notifications in Brazil and outbreak of ZikaV, primarily in the Brazil's Northeast. It has been previously documented that many different viruses might cause congenital acquired microcephaly. Still there is no consensus on the best curve to measure cephalic circumference, specifically in preterm neonates. Conflicting opinions regarding the diagnosis of microcephaly (below 2 or 3 standard deviations) that should be used for the notifications were also found in the literature. The development of diagnostic techniques that confirm a cause-effect association and studies regarding the physiopathology of the central nervous system impairment should be prioritized. It is also necessary to strictly define the criteria for the diagnosis of microcephaly to identify cases that should undergo an etiological investigation.

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 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 471 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 111 23%
Student > Master 95 20%
Researcher 47 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 8%
Student > Postgraduate 32 7%
Other 81 17%
Unknown 75 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 7%
Neuroscience 17 4%
Other 93 19%
Unknown 98 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,900,534
of 18,812,713 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pediatria
#135
of 710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,650
of 273,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pediatria
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,812,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 710 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 273,171 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.