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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Feeding methods for children with cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.10.020 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giesse Albeche Duarte, Ramon Bossardi Ramos, Maria Cristina de Almeida Freitas Cardoso |
| Abstract |
Feeding difficulties in children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) are frequent and appear at birth due to impairment of sucking and swallowing functions. The use of appropriate feeding methods for the different types of cleft and the period of the child's life is of utmost importance for their full development. Review studies comparing feeding methods for children with CLP, pre- and postoperatively. The search covered the period between January 1990 and August 2015 in the PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, and Google Scholar databases using the terms: cleft lip or cleft palate and feeding methods or breastfeeding or swallowing disorders and their synonyms. This systematic review was recorded in PROSPERO under number CRD42014015011. Publications that compared feeding methods and published in Portuguese, English, and Spanish were included in the review. Studies with associated syndromes, orthopedic methods, or comparing surgical techniques were not included. The three reviewed studies on the period prior to surgical repair showed better feeding performance with three different methods: squeezable bottle, syringe, and paladai bottle. Only one study addressed the postoperative period of cleft lip and/or palate repair, with positive results for the feeding method with suction. Likewise, the post-lip repair studies showed better results with suction methods. After palatoplasty, two studies showed better performance with alternative feeding routes, one study with suction method, and one study that compared methods with no suction showed better results with spoon. The studies show that prior to surgical repair, the use of alternative methods can be beneficial. In the postoperative period following lip repair, methods with suction are more beneficial. However, in the postoperative period of palatoplasty, there are divergences of opinion regarding the most appropriate feeding methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 50 | 55% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 49 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,047,002
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#108
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,483
of 312,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 312,874 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.