↓ 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
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
264 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 29 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 264 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%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 255 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 19%
Student > Bachelor 44 17%
Unspecified 32 12%
Researcher 30 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 9%
Other 82 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 27%
Unspecified 45 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 17 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 17 July 2019.
All research outputs
#273,330
of 13,628,925 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#698
of 10,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,654
of 250,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 519 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,628,925 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 10,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 250,329 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 519 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.