Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30142150›Full record

ReviewPLoS biology2018

Why is congenital Zika syndrome asymmetrically distributed among human populations?

Jimena Barbeito-Andrés, Lavínia Schuler-Faccini, Patricia Pestana Garcez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Genetics of human brain development.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2024
    Review
  7. My child is growing and now? Exploring the environmental needs of children with congenital Zika syndrome according to their caregivers' perceptions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Zika Virus Infection of PregnantJournal of virology · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jimena Barbeito-AndrésInstitute of Biomedical Sciences, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Lavínia Schuler-FacciniDepartament of Genetics, Institute of Biosciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Patricia Pestana GarcezInstitute of Biomedical Sciences, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9107-1335
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zika virus (ZIKV) is a health burden due to the severe neurological abnormalities that arise after congenital infection. Although multiple experimental studies have linked ZIKV with neural birth defects, the scientific community has not been able to fully explain why Congenital Zika Syndrome (CZS) was only apparent after the virus entered the Americas and why these occurrences have an asymmetric geographic distribution. Here, we review the impact of ZIKV infection on human populations by exploring evolutionary changes in the virus' genome as well as examining the diverse genetic and environmental cofactors of the human hosts.

Indexed as

AmericasFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousZika VirusZika Virus Infection

Identifiers

PMID30142150
PMCPMC6126861
OpenAlexW2888283379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.