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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002971.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Quigley, William McGuire |
| Abstract |
When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative sources of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or low birth weight infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of optimal levels of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or low birth weight infants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Peru | 1 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 370 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 358 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 62 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 54 | 15% |
| Researcher | 48 | 13% |
| Other | 35 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 8% |
| Other | 68 | 18% |
| Unknown | 72 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 155 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 8% |
| Unknown | 86 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#844,120
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,628
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,872
of 241,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 241,661 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.