↓ Skip to main content

Push versus gravity for intermittent bolus gavage tube feeding of premature and low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Push versus gravity for intermittent bolus gavage tube feeding of premature and low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005249.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A Dawson, Ravinder Summan, Nadia Badawi, Jann P Foster

Abstract

Many small, sick and premature infants are unable to coordinate sucking, swallowing and breathing, and therefore, require gavage feeding. In gavage feeding, milk feeds are delivered through a tube passed via the nose or mouth into the stomach. Intermittent bolus milk feeds may be administered using a syringe to gently push milk into the infant's stomach (push feed). Alternatively, milk can be poured into a syringe attached to the tube and allowed to drip in by gravity (gravity feed).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 7 13%
Unspecified 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 62%
Unspecified 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,059,753
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,104
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,501
of 258,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#163
of 413 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 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 258,134 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 413 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 59% of its contemporaries.