↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Customised versus population‐based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low‐risk pregnant women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
Title
Customised versus population‐based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low‐risk pregnant women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008549.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela E Carberry, Adrienne Gordon, Diana M Bond, Jon Hyett, Camille H Raynes‐Greenow, Heather E Jeffery

Abstract

Fetal growth restriction is defined as failure to reach growth potential and considered one of the major complications of pregnancy. These infants are often, although not universally, small for gestational age (SGA). SGA is defined as a weight less than a specified percentile (usually the 10th percentile). Identification of SGA infants is important because these infants are at increased risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Screening for SGA is a challenge for all maternity care providers and current methods of clinical assessment fail to detect many infants who are SGA. Large observational studies suggest that customised growth charts may be better able to differentiate between constitutional and pathologic smallness. Customised charts adjust for physiological variables such as maternal weight and height, ethnicity and parity.

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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 227 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 16%
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Researcher 16 7%
Other 12 5%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 68 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Psychology 15 6%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 72 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 November 2021.
All research outputs
#7,993,771
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,729
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,718
of 242,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#173
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 242,109 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.