| Title |
Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 1999
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000280 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carl A Kuschel, Jane E Harding |
| Abstract |
This section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue. The main objective was to determine if addition of carbohydrate supplements to human milk leads to improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects in preterm infants. The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group was used. This includes searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants, journal handsearching mainly in the English language. All trials utilising random or quasi-random allocation evaluating the supplementation of human milk with carbohydrate in preterm infants within a nursery setting were eligible. Not applicable. No eligible trials were found. There are no studies which have specifically evaluated the addition of carbohydrate alone for the purpose of improving growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. No recommendations for practice can be made. Research should be directed towards comparison of different quantities and types of carbohydrate in multicomponent fortifiers containing protein and minerals, specifically evaluating short-term growth and long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 24% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 March 2008.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,966
of 36,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 36,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.