↓ Skip to main content

Avaliação para o início da alimentação oral de recém-nascidos pré-termo

Overview of attention for article published in CoDAS, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Avaliação para o início da alimentação oral de recém-nascidos pré-termo
Published in
CoDAS, July 2016
DOI 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geovana de Paula Bolzan, Luana Cristina Berwig, Leila Sauer Prade, Lilian Kopp Cuti, Raquel Coube de Carvalho Yamamoto, Ana Maria Toniolo da Silva, Angela Regina Maciel Weinmann

Abstract

To assess the accuracy of the Preterm Oral Feeding Readiness Scale (POFRAS) on the beginning of oral feeding in preterm infants and to verify the concordance between this tool and the Oral Feeding Skill Level. 82 preterm infants were assessed by POFRAS regarding their readiness to initiate oral feeding and by the oral feeding skill level evaluation during the first oral feeding. POFRAS's accuracy was estimated regarding proficiency by a Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve. The concordance between the tools was obtained by analysis of the Kappa coefficient. POFRAS's global accuracy was of 71.29%. The cut-off value of 29 was the one that presented most optimization of the sensitivity based on specificity. The Kappa coefficient has shown a weak concordance between the instruments to identify infants able and unable to oral feeding (k=0.281). POFRAS's accuracy to initiate oral feeding considering the proficiency was similar to that obtained with the technique of translactation. We observed a weak concordance between the instruments. We suggest that, in clinical practice, both instruments should be used in a complementary manner, since both present important aspects of the preterm feeding behavior that together will better guide the necessary conduct to provide an effective and quick transition to full oral feeding in this population.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 13 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Computer Science 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Design 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,770
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#327
of 389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,430
of 354,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 389 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 354,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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.