↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Marijuana Use During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: Implications for Neonatal and Childhood Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatrics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
124 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
77 X users
facebook
19 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
177 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
Marijuana Use During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: Implications for Neonatal and Childhood Outcomes
Published in
Pediatrics, September 2018
DOI 10.1542/peds.2018-1889
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheryl A. Ryan, Seth D. Ammerman, Mary E. O’Connor, Lucien Gonzalez, Stephen W. Patrick, Joanna Quigley, Leslie R. Walker, Joan Younger Meek, Margreete Johnston, Lisa Stellwagen, Jennifer Thomas, Julie Ware

Abstract

Marijuana is one of the most widely used substances during pregnancy in the United States. Emerging data on the ability of cannabinoids to cross the placenta and affect the development of the fetus raise concerns about both pregnancy outcomes and long-term consequences for the infant or child. Social media is used to tout the use of marijuana for severe nausea associated with pregnancy. Concerns have also been raised about marijuana use by breastfeeding mothers. With this clinical report, we provide data on the current rates of marijuana use among pregnant and lactating women, discuss what is known about the effects of marijuana on fetal development and later neurodevelopmental and behavioral outcomes, and address implications for education and policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 X users 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 262 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 11%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Other 25 10%
Student > Master 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 7%
Other 46 18%
Unknown 90 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Psychology 16 6%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Other 41 16%
Unknown 102 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1044. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#15,218
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics
#106
of 17,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278
of 346,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics
#7
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 49.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 346,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.