↓ Skip to main content

Spina bifida cystica and severe congenital bilateral talipes equinovarus in one twin of a monoamniotic pair: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Spina bifida cystica and severe congenital bilateral talipes equinovarus in one twin of a monoamniotic pair: a case report
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-3108-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Momo Kadia, Desmond Aroke, Frank-Leonel Tianyi, Ndemazie Nkafu Bechem, Christian Akem Dimala

Abstract

Spina bifida and congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) are common congenital malformations which may occur together and increase morbidity. Monozygous twins are particularly at risk of these malformations and discordance in one type of malformation is typical. The occurrence of both spina bifida and CTEV in one twin of a monozygotic pair is rare. A 22 year-old Cameroonian primigravida at 36 weeks of a twin gestation was received in our district hospital at the expulsive phase of labour on a background of sub-optimal antenatal care. A caesarean section indicated for cephalo-pelvic disproportion was performed and life monoamniotic male twins were extracted. The first twin was normal. The second twin had spina bifida cystica and severe bilateral CTEV. Routine postnatal care was ensured and at day 2 of life, the affected twin was evacuated to a tertiary hospital for proper management. He was later on reported dead from complications of hydrocephalus. Spina bifida cystica with severe bilateral CTEV in one twin of a monoamniotic pair illustrates the complexity in the interplay of causal factors of these malformations even among monozygotic twins who are assumed to share similar genetic and environmental features. The occurrence and poor outcome of the malformations was probably potentiated by poor antenatal care. With postnatal diagnoses, a better outcome was difficult to secure even with prompt referral. Early prenatal diagnoses and appropriate counseling of parents are cardinal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Other 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,581,651
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,036
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,004
of 441,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#124
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 441,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.