| Title |
Re‐feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012940.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thangaraj Abiramalatha, Sivam Thanigainathan, Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry Ramaswamy, Balakrishnan Rajaiah, Srinivas Ramakrishnan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 3 | 38% |
| South Africa | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 13 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,806,518
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,396
of 12,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,906
of 372,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 372,479 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.