↓ Skip to main content

Routine administration of Anti-D: the ethical case for offering pregnant women fetal RHDgenotyping and a review of policy and practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Routine administration of Anti-D: the ethical case for offering pregnant women fetal RHDgenotyping and a review of policy and practice
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2393-14-87
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Kent, Anne-Maree Farrell, Peter Soothill

Abstract

Since its introduction in the 1960s Anti-D immunoglobulin (Anti-D Ig) has been highly successful in reducing the incidence of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) and achieving improvements to maternal and fetal health. It has protected women from other invasive interventions during pregnancy and prevented deaths and damage amongst newborns and is a technology which has been adopted worldwide. Currently about one third of pregnant women with the blood group Rhesus D (RhD) negative in the UK (approximately 40,000 women per year in England and Wales), receive antenatal Anti-D Ig in pregnancy when they do not require it because they are carrying a RhD negative fetus. Since 1997, a test using cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood has been developed to identify the genotype of the fetus and can be used to predict the fetal RhD blood group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 18%
Unspecified 13 12%
Student > Master 13 12%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 8 8%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 30%
Unspecified 13 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 23 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#1,394,558
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#319
of 4,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,136
of 220,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#13
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 220,969 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.