↓ Skip to main content

Baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 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
Baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009067.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Fallon, Deirdre Van der Putten, Cindy Dring, Edina H Moylett, Gerard Fealy, Declan Devane

Abstract

Baby-led breastfeeding is recommended as best practice in determining the frequency and duration of a breastfeed. An alternative approach is described as scheduled, where breastfeeding is timed and restricted in frequency and duration. It is necessary to review the evidence that supports current recommendations, so that women are provided with high-quality evidence to inform their feeding decisions. To evaluate the effects of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 February 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 23 February 2016), EThOS, Index to Theses and ProQuest database and World Health Organization's 1998 evidence to support the 'Ten Steps' to successful breastfeeding (10 May 2016). We planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised trials with randomisation at both the individual and cluster level. Studies presented in abstract form would have been eligible for inclusion if sufficient data were available. Studies using a cross-over design would not have been eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We would have resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author, but this was not necessary. No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review. This review demonstrates that there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns. It is recommended that no changes are made to current practice guidelines without undertaking robust research, to include many patterns of breastfeeding and not limited to baby-led and scheduled breastfeeding. Future exploratory research is needed on baby-led breastfeeding that takes the mother's perspective into consideration.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 26%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Other 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 29%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 18 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 02 January 2020.
All research outputs
#831,367
of 14,546,774 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,479
of 11,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,794
of 265,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,546,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 265,843 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 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 71% of its contemporaries.