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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Outcomes of Zika virus infection during pregnancy: contributions to the debate on the efficiency of cohort studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-017-4915-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisabeth Carmen Duarte, Leila Posenato Garcia, Wildo Navegantes de Araújo, Maria P. Velez |
| Abstract |
Zika infection during pregnancy (ZIKVP) is known to be associated with adverse outcomes. Studies on this matter involve both rare outcomes and rare exposures and methodological choices are not straightforward. Cohort studies will surely offer more robust evidences, but their efficiency must be enhanced. We aim to contribute to the debate on sample selection strategies in cohort studies to assess outcomes associated with ZKVP. A study can be statistically more efficient than another if its estimates are more accurate (precise and valid), even if the studies involve the same number of subjects. Sample size and specific design strategies can enhance or impair the statistical efficiency of a study, depending on how the subjects are distributed in subgroups pertinent to the analysis. In most ZIKVP cohort studies to date there is an a priori identification of the source population (pregnant women, regardless of their exposure status) which is then sampled or included in its entirety (census). Subsequently, the group of pregnant women is classified according to exposure (presence or absence of ZIKVP), respecting the exposed:unexposed ratio in the source population. We propose that the sample selection be done from the a priori identification of groups of pregnant women exposed and unexposed to ZIKVP. This method will allow for an oversampling (even 100%) of the pregnant women with ZKVP and a optimized sampling from the general population of pregnant women unexposed to ZIKVP, saving resources in the unexposed group and improving the expected number of incident cases (outcomes) overall. We hope that this proposal will broaden the methodological debate on the improvement of statistical power and protocol harmonization of cohort studies that aim to evaluate the association between Zika infection during pregnancy and outcomes for the offspring, as well as those with similar objectives. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 40% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#12,765,116
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,692
of 14,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,419
of 438,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#113
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 438,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.