↓ Skip to main content

Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 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
Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001970.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire

Abstract

The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm (less than 32 weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (VLBW; less than 1500 g) infants is often delayed for several days or longer after birth due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). However, delaying enteral feeding could diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
United States 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 277 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 17%
Student > Bachelor 36 13%
Researcher 34 12%
Other 20 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 72 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 89 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 07 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,801,005
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,851
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,839
of 369,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 369,468 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.