↓ Skip to main content

Transpyloric versus gastric tube feeding for preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
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 (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Transpyloric versus gastric tube feeding for preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003487.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Watson, William McGuire

Abstract

Enteral feeding tubes for preterm infants may be placed in the stomach (gastric tube feeding) or in the upper small bowel (transpyloric tube feeding). There are potential advantages and disadvantages to both routes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Researcher 13 15%
Other 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 17%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 17 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,155,344
of 14,137,193 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,393
of 10,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,916
of 146,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,137,193 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 10,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 146,431 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 104 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 74% of its contemporaries.