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 |
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). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
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
#2,823,560
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,467
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,794
of 192,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 192,725 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 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 52% of its contemporaries.