↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ready‐to‐use therapeutic food for home‐based treatment of severe acute malnutrition in children from six months to five years of age

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
Title
Ready‐to‐use therapeutic food for home‐based treatment of severe acute malnutrition in children from six months to five years of age
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009000.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anel Schoonees, Martani Lombard, Alfred Musekiwa, Etienne Nel, Jimmy Volmink

Abstract

Malnourished children have a higher risk of death and illness. Treating severe acute malnourished children in hospitals is not always desirable or practical in rural settings, and home treatment may be better. Home treatment can be food prepared by the carer, such as flour porridge, or commercially manufactured food such as ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF). RUTF is made according to a standard, energy-rich composition defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The benefits of RUTF include a low moisture content, long shelf life without needing refrigeration and that it requires no preparation.

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 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Malawi 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 376 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 81 21%
Researcher 57 14%
Student > Bachelor 41 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 9%
Student > Postgraduate 26 7%
Other 75 19%
Unknown 79 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 134 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 9%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Other 38 10%
Unknown 96 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 January 2023.
All research outputs
#5,471,255
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,375
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,828
of 210,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 210,295 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.