↓ Skip to main content

Instruments for assessing readiness to commence suck feeds in preterm infants: effects on time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Instruments for assessing readiness to commence suck feeds in preterm infants: effects on time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005586.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Crowe, Linda, Chang, Anne, Wallace, Karen

Abstract

One of the most challenging milestones for preterm infants is the acquisition of safe and efficient feeding skills. The majority of healthy full term infants are born with skills to coordinate their suck, swallow and respiration. However, this is not the case for preterm infants who develop these skills gradually as they transition from tube feeding to suck feeds. For preterm infants the ability to engage in oral feeding behaviour is dependent on many factors. The complexity of factors influencing feeding readiness has led some researchers to investigate the use of an individualised assessment of an infant's abilities. A limited number of instruments that aim to indicate an individual infant's readiness to commence either breast or bottle feeding have been developed. To determine the effects of using a feeding readiness instrument when compared to no instrument or another instrument on the outcomes of time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisations. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 22 February 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 22 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing a formal instrument to assess a preterm infant's readiness to commence suck feeds with either no instrument (usual practice) or another feeding readiness instrument. The standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal were used. Two authors independently screened potential studies for inclusion. No studies were found that met our inclusion criteria. No studies met the inclusion criteria. There is currently no evidence to inform clinical practice, with no studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Research is needed in this area to establish an evidence base for the clinical utility of implementing the use of an instrument to assess feeding readiness in the preterm infant population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 114 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Researcher 11 9%
Other 42 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 25%
Unspecified 16 13%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 7 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 February 2017.
All research outputs
#860,266
of 9,116,047 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,187
of 8,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,413
of 257,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,116,047 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 257,368 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.