↓ Skip to main content

Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 27,388)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1556 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmsr1604338
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonja A. Rasmussen, Denise J. Jamieson, Margaret A. Honein, Lyle R. Petersen

Abstract

The Zika virus has spread rapidly in the Americas since its first identification in Brazil in early 2015. Prenatal Zika virus infection has been linked to adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, most notably microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies. To determine whether Zika virus infection during pregnancy causes these adverse outcomes, we evaluated available data using criteria that have been proposed for the assessment of potential teratogens. On the basis of this review, we conclude that a causal relationship exists between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies. Evidence that was used to support this . . .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,203 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 1,556 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 19 1%
Brazil 16 1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
France 3 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Other 12 <1%
Unknown 1494 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 286 18%
Student > Master 277 18%
Researcher 225 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 180 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 109 7%
Other 342 22%
Unknown 137 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 491 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 217 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 173 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 97 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 87 6%
Other 296 19%
Unknown 195 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3734. 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 06 August 2020.
All research outputs
#482
of 15,926,201 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#42
of 27,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7
of 266,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#1
of 320 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,926,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 83.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 266,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 320 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.