↓ Skip to main content

Avoidance of bottles during the establishment of breast feeds in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
207 tweeters
facebook
17 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Avoidance of bottles during the establishment of breast feeds in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005252.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmel T Collins, Jennifer Gillis, Andrew J McPhee, Hiroki Suganuma, Maria Makrides

Abstract

Preterm infants start milk feeds by gavage tube. As they mature, sucking feeds are gradually introduced. Women who choose to breast feed their preterm infant are not always able to be in hospital with their baby and need an alternative approach to feeding. Most commonly, milk (expressed breast milk or formula) is given by bottle. Whether using bottles during establishment of breast feeds is detrimental to breast feeding success is a topic of ongoing debate. To identify the effects of avoidance of bottle feeds during establishment of breast feeding on the likelihood of successful breast feeding, and to assess the safety of alternatives to bottle feeds. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to July 2016), Embase (1980 to July 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to July 2016). We also searched databases of clinical trials and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing avoidance of bottles with use of bottles in women who have chosen to breast feed their preterm infant. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When appropriate, we contacted study authors for additional information. Review authors used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We included seven trials with 1152 preterm infants. Five studies used a cup feeding strategy, one used a tube feeding strategy and one used a novel teat when supplements to breast feeds were needed. We included the novel teat study in this review, as the teat was designed to more closely mimic the sucking action of breast feeding. The trials were of small to moderate size, and two had high risk of attrition bias. Adherence with cup feeding was poor in one of the studies, indicating dissatisfaction with this method by staff and/or parents; the remaining four cup feeding studies provided no such reports of dissatisfaction or low adherence. Meta-analyses provided evidence of low to moderate quality indicating that avoiding bottles increases the extent of breast feeding on discharge home (full breast feeding typical risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.80; any breast feeding RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16). Limited available evidence for three months and six months post discharge shows that avoiding bottles increases the occurrence of full breast feeding and any breast feeding at discharge and at six months post discharge, and of full (but not any) breast feeding at three months post discharge. This effect was evident at all time points for the tube alone strategy and for all except any breast feeding at three months post discharge for cup feeding. Investigators reported no clear benefit when the novel teat was used. No other benefits or harms were evident, including, in contrast to the previous (2008) review, length of hospital stay. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggests that supplementing breast feeds by cup increases the extent and duration of breast feeding. Current insufficient evidence provides no basis for recommendations for a tube alone approach to supplementing breast feeds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 207 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 137 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 19%
Unspecified 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Researcher 16 11%
Other 13 9%
Other 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 23%
Unspecified 31 22%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 17 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 177. 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 13 August 2019.
All research outputs
#78,631
of 13,609,947 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 10,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,851
of 289,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,609,947 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,667 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 98% 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 289,816 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 163 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 97% of its contemporaries.