↓ Skip to main content

Prenatal Dexamethasone for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2012
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 (#7 of 642)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
37 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Prenatal Dexamethasone for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11673-012-9384-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice Dreger, Ellen K. Feder, Anne Tamar-Mattis

Abstract

Following extensive examination of published and unpublished materials, we provide a history of the use of dexamethasone in pregnant women at risk of carrying a female fetus affected by congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). This intervention has been aimed at preventing development of ambiguous genitalia, the urogenital sinus, tomboyism, and lesbianism. We map out ethical problems in this history, including: misleading promotion to physicians and CAH-affected families; de facto experimentation without the necessary protections of approved research; troubling parallels to the history of prenatal use of diethylstilbestrol (DES); and the use of medicine and public monies to attempt prevention of benign behavioral sex variations. Critical attention is directed at recent investigations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP); we argue that the weak and unsupported conclusions of these investigations indicate major gaps in the systems meant to protect subjects of high-risk medical research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Ecuador 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 73 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Other 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Social Sciences 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 13%
Psychology 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 9 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 128. 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 10 April 2023.
All research outputs
#308,100
of 24,579,850 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#7
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,381
of 167,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,579,850 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 642 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. 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 167,475 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.