↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prenatal education for congenital toxoplasmosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 Mendeley
Title
Prenatal education for congenital toxoplasmosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006171.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simona Di Mario, Vittorio Basevi, Carlo Gagliotti, Daniela Spettoli, Gianfranco Gori, Roberto D'Amico, Nicola Magrini

Abstract

Congenital toxoplasmosis is considered a rare but potentially severe infection. Prenatal education about congenital toxoplasmosis could be the most efficient and least harmful intervention, yet its effectiveness is uncertain. To assess the effects of prenatal education for preventing congenital toxoplasmosis. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015), and reference lists of relevant papers, reviews and websites. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of all types of prenatal education on toxoplasmosis infection during pregnancy. Cluster-randomized trials were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (involving a total of 5455 women) met the inclusion criteria. The two included trials measured the effectiveness of the intervention in different ways, which meant that meta-analysis of the results was not possible. The overall quality of the two studies, as assessed using the GRADE approach, was low, with high risk of detection and attrition bias in both included trials.One trial (432 women enrolled) conducted in Canada was judged of low methodological quality. This trial did not report on any of the review's pre-specified primary outcomes and the secondary outcomes reported results only as P values. Moreover, losses to follow-up were high (34%, 147 out of 432 women initially enrolled). The authors concluded that prenatal education can effectively change pregnant women's behavior as it increased pet, personal and food hygiene. The second trial conducted in France was also judged of low methodological quality. Losses to follow-up were also high (44.5%, 2233 out of 5023 women initially enrolled) and differential (40% in the intervention group and 52% in the control group). The authors concluded that prenatal education for congenital toxoplasmoses has a significant effect on improving women's knowledge, whereas it has no effect on changing women's behavior. In this trial 17/3949 pregnant women seroconverted for toxoplasmosis: 13/2591 (0.5%) in the intervention group and 4/1358 (0.3%) in the control group. The rate of seroconversion detected during the study did not differ between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 5.21; participants = 3949; studies = one, low quality evidence). The number of events was too small to reach conclusions about the effect of prenatal education on seroconversion rate during pregnancy.No other randomized trials on the effect of prenatal education on congenital toxoplasmosis rate, or toxoplasmosis seroconversion rate during pregnancy were detected. Even though primary prevention of congenital toxoplasmosis is considered a desirable intervention, given the lack of related risks compared to secondary and tertiary prevention, its effectiveness has not been adequately evaluated. There is very little evidence from RCTs that prenatal education is effective in reducing congenital toxoplasmosis even though evidence from observational studies suggests it is. Given the lack of good evidence supporting prenatal education for congenital toxoplasmosis prevention, further RCTs are needed to confirm any potential benefits and to further quantify the impact of different sets of educational intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 237 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 19%
Student > Bachelor 43 18%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 53 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 13%
Psychology 15 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 60 25%

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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#11,059,680
of 19,214,062 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,605
of 11,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,029
of 357,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,214,062 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 357,875 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 199 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.