↓ Skip to main content

Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 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
Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004950.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prakeshkumar S Shah, Cecilia Herbozo, Lucia Liz Aliwalas, Vibhuti S Shah

Abstract

Physiological changes brought about by pain may contribute to the development of morbidity in neonates. Clinical studies have shown reduction in changes in physiological parameters and pain score measurements following pre-emptive analgesic administration in situations where the neonate is experiencing pain or stress. Non-pharmacological measures (such as holding, swaddling and breastfeeding) and pharmacological measures (such as acetaminophen, sucrose and opioids) have been used for this purpose.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 248 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 17%
Student > Bachelor 41 16%
Researcher 30 12%
Unspecified 22 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 7%
Other 72 28%
Unknown 30 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 23%
Unspecified 28 11%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 30 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#253,868
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#674
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,309
of 257,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 456 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 257,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 456 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 91% of its contemporaries.