↓ Skip to main content

Early trophic feeding versus enteral fasting for very preterm or very low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
318 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
Early trophic feeding versus enteral fasting for very preterm or very low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000504.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessie Morgan, Sarah Bombell, William McGuire

Abstract

The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm (< 32 weeks) or very low birth weight (< 1500 grams) infants is often delayed due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. However, prolonged enteral fasting may diminish the functional adaptation of the immature gastrointestinal tract and extend the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks. Trophic feeding, giving infants very small volumes of milk to promote intestinal maturation, may enhance feeding tolerance and decrease the time taken to reach full enteral feeding independently of parenteral nutrition.

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 318 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 313 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 16%
Student > Bachelor 41 13%
Researcher 34 11%
Other 30 9%
Student > Postgraduate 29 9%
Other 67 21%
Unknown 65 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 162 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 10%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 76 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,639,408
of 21,353,728 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,799
of 12,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,482
of 175,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,353,728 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. 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 175,389 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.