↓ Skip to main content

Human milk for neonatal pain relief during ophthalmoscopy*

Overview of attention for article published in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Human milk for neonatal pain relief during ophthalmoscopy*
Published in
Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, October 2013
DOI 10.1590/s0080-623420130000500005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laiane Medeiros Ribeiro, Thaíla Corrêa Castral, Liciane Langona Montanholi, Mariana Firmino Daré, Aline Carolina de Araújo Silva, Sonir Roberto Rauber Antonini, Carmen Gracinda Silvan Scochi

Abstract

Ophthalmoscopy performed for the early diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is painful for preterm infants, thus necessitating interventions for minimizing pain. The present study aimed to establish the effectiveness of human milk, compared with sucrose, for pain relief in premature infants subjected to ophthalmoscopy for the early diagnosis of ROP. This investigation was a pilot, quasi-experimental study conducted with 14 premature infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of a university hospital. Comparison between the groups did not yield a statistically significant difference relative to the crying time, salivary cortisol, or heart rate (HR). Human milk appears to be as effective as sucrose in relieving acute pain associated with ophthalmoscopy. The study's limitations included its small sample size and lack of randomization. Experimental investigations with greater sample power should be performed to reinforce the evidence found in the present study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 25 26%
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 14 January 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP
#546
of 772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,897
of 219,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 772 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 219,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.