↓ Skip to main content

Possible Zika Virus Infection Among Pregnant Women - United States and Territories, May 2016.

Overview of attention for article published in MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • 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)

Mentioned by

news
83 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
285 X users
facebook
44 Facebook pages
googleplus
7 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Possible Zika Virus Infection Among Pregnant Women - United States and Territories, May 2016.
Published in
MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, May 2016
DOI 10.15585/mmwr.mm6520e1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regina M. Simeone, Carrie K. Shapiro-Mendoza, Dana Meaney-Delman, Emily E. Petersen, Romeo R. Galang, Titilope Oduyebo, Brenda Rivera-Garcia, Miguel Valencia-Prado, Kimberly B. Newsome, Janice Pérez-Padilla, Tonya R. Williams, Matthew Biggerstaff, Denise J. Jamieson, Margaret A. Honein, Farah Ahmed, Scott Anesi, Kathryn E. Arnold, Danielle Barradas, Devra Barter, Jeanne Bertolli, Andrea M. Bingham, Jan Bollock, Trish Bosse, Kristy K. Bradley, Diane Brady, Catherine M. Brown, Katie Bryan, Victoria Buchanan, Ponce D. Bullard, Alice Carrigan, Monica Clouse, Sally Cook, Michael Cooper, Sherri Davidson, Ariana DeBarr, Thomas Dobbs, Tambra Dunams, Jeffrey Eason, Amanda Eckert, Paula Eggers, Sascha R. Ellington, Amanda Feldpausch, Carolyn R. Fredette, Julie Gabel, Maleeka Glover, Michael Gosciminski, Margarita Gay, Robert Haddock, Sheryl Hand, Jessica Hardy, Marie E. Bottomley Hartel, K. Hennenfent, Susan L. Hills, Jennifer House, Iro Igbinosa, Lucy Im, Hamik Jeff, Sumaiya Khan, Lon Kightlinger, Jean Y. Ko, Samir Koirala, Lauren Korhonen, Vikram Krishnasamy, Katie Kurkjian, Margaret Lampe, Sandra Larson, Ellen H. Lee, Leah Lind, Scott Lindquist, Jonah Long, Jennifer Macdonald, Jennifer MacFarquhar, Daniel P. Mackie, Miguella Mark-Carew, Brennan Martin, Alma Martinez-Quiñones, Janice Matthews-Greer, Sasha A. McGee, Joe McLaughlin, Valerie Mock, Esther Muna, Hanna Oltean, Josephine O’Mallan, H. Pamela Pagano, Sarah Y. Park, Dallin Peterson, Kara N.D. Polen, Charsey Cole Porse, Carol Y. Rao, Abubakar Ropri, Jessica Rinsky, Sara Robinson, Asher Y. Rosinger, Irene Ruberto, Elizabeth Schiffman, Christine Scott-Waldron, Shereen Semple, Tyler Sharp, Kirstin Short, Kimberly Signs, Sally A. Slavinski, Taryn Stevens, Joseph Sweatlock, Elizabeth A. Talbot, Julius Tonzel, Rita Traxler, Sheri Tubach, Clayton Van Houten, Elizabeth VinHatton, Melissa Viray, Daguise Virginie, Michael D. Warren, Catherine Waters, Paul White, Tanya Williams, Ann I. Winters, Shelley Wood, Ibrahim Zaganjor

Abstract

Zika virus is a cause of microcephaly and brain abnormalities (1), and it is the first known mosquito-borne infection to cause congenital anomalies in humans. The establishment of a comprehensive surveillance system to monitor pregnant women with Zika virus infection will provide data to further elucidate the full range of potential outcomes for fetuses and infants of mothers with asymptomatic and symptomatic Zika virus infection during pregnancy. In February 2016, Zika virus disease and congenital Zika virus infections became nationally notifiable conditions in the United States (2). Cases in pregnant women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection who have either 1) symptomatic infection or 2) asymptomatic infection with diagnosed complications of pregnancy can be reported as cases of Zika virus disease to ArboNET* (2), CDC's national arboviral diseases surveillance system. Under existing interim guidelines from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), asymptomatic Zika virus infections in pregnant women who do not have known pregnancy complications are not reportable. ArboNET does not currently include pregnancy surveillance information (e.g., gestational age or pregnancy exposures) or pregnancy outcomes. To understand the full impact of infection on the fetus and neonate, other systems are needed for reporting and active monitoring of pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection during pregnancy. Thus, in collaboration with state, local, tribal, and territorial health departments, CDC established two surveillance systems to monitor pregnancies and congenital outcomes among women with laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection(†) in the United States and territories: 1) the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (USZPR),(§) which monitors pregnant women residing in U.S. states and all U.S. territories except Puerto Rico, and 2) the Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System (ZAPSS), which monitors pregnant women residing in Puerto Rico. As of May 12, 2016, the surveillance systems were monitoring 157 and 122 pregnant women with laboratory evidence of possible Zika virus infection from participating U.S. states and territories, respectively. Tracking and monitoring clinical presentation of Zika virus infection, all prenatal testing, and adverse consequences of Zika virus infection during pregnancy are critical to better characterize the risk for congenital infection, the performance of prenatal diagnostic testing, and the spectrum of adverse congenital outcomes. These data will improve clinical guidance, inform counseling messages for pregnant women, and facilitate planning for clinical and public health services for affected families.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 285 X users 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Unknown 117 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 34 28%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 22 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 934. 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 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,591
of 25,920,652 outputs
Outputs from MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report
#380
of 4,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294
of 354,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report
#1
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,920,652 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 4,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 336.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 354,699 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 106 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.