↓ 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, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 24,072)
  • 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
722 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1008 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmsr1604338
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

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 1,259 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 1,008 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 20 2%
Brazil 12 1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
France 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 12 1%
Unknown 950 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 191 19%
Student > Master 188 19%
Researcher 163 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 113 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 71 7%
Other 282 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 368 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 167 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 98 10%
Unspecified 80 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 5%
Other 242 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3795. 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 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#89
of 11,822,202 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#5
of 24,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4
of 280,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#1
of 332 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,822,202 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 24,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.7. 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 280,562 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 332 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.