↓ Skip to main content

An adjustable fetal weight standard for twins: a statistical modeling study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
An adjustable fetal weight standard for twins: a statistical modeling study
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0401-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Zhang, Rafael Mikolajczyk, Xiaoping Lei, Luming Sun, Hongping Yu, Weiwei Cheng

Abstract

It is a common practice to use a singleton fetal growth standard to assess twin growth. We aim to create a twin fetal weight standard which is also adjustable for race/ethnicity and other factors. Over half a million twin births of low risk pregnancies in the US, from 1995 to 2004, were used to construct a fetal weight standard. We used the Hadlock's fetal growth standard and the proportionality principle to make the standard adjustable for other factors such as race/ethnicity. We validated the standard in different race/ethnicities in the US and against previously published curves from around the world. The adjustable fetal weight standard has an excellent match with the observed birthweight data in non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanics, and Asian from 24 to 38 weeks gestation. It also had a very good fit with cross-sectional data from Australia and Norway, and a longitudinal standard from Brazil. However, our model-based 10th and 90th percentiles differed substantially from studies in Japan and US that used the last menstrual period for estimate of gestational age. The adjustable fetal weight standard for twins is a flexible tool and can be used in different populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 24%
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Professor 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 16%
Computer Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,640,463
of 5,320,782 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,188
of 1,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,047
of 187,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#68
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,320,782 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 187,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.