↓ Skip to main content

Rethinking “Posterior” Tongue-Tie

Overview of attention for article published in Breastfeeding Medicine, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Rethinking “Posterior” Tongue-Tie
Published in
Breastfeeding Medicine, October 2013
DOI 10.1089/bfm.2013.0103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pamela Sylvia Douglas

Abstract

Currently, many clinicians who help with breastfeeding problems are diagnosing "posterior" tongue-tie in infants and performing or referring for frenotomy. In this "Speaking Out" article, I argue that the diagnosis of "posterior" tongue-tie has successfully raised awareness of the importance of impaired tongue function in breastfeeding difficulty. However, the diagnosis of "posterior" tongue-tie also applies a reductionist, medicalized theoretical frame to the complex problem of impaired tongue function, risking unintended outcomes. Impaired tongue function arises out of multiple interacting and co-evolving factors, including the interplay between social behaviors concerning breastfeeding and mother-infant biology. Consideration of theoretical frames is vital if we are to build an evidence base through efficient use of the scarce resources available for clinical breastfeeding research and minimize unintended outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 September 2022.
All research outputs
#5,406,085
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Breastfeeding Medicine
#421
of 1,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,377
of 224,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breastfeeding Medicine
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 224,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.