↓ Skip to main content

Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 1999
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000280
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carl A Kuschel, Jane E Harding

Abstract

This section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue. The main objective was to determine if addition of carbohydrate supplements to human milk leads to improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects in preterm infants. The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group was used. This includes searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants, journal handsearching mainly in the English language. All trials utilising random or quasi-random allocation evaluating the supplementation of human milk with carbohydrate in preterm infants within a nursery setting were eligible. Not applicable. No eligible trials were found. There are no studies which have specifically evaluated the addition of carbohydrate alone for the purpose of improving growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. No recommendations for practice can be made. Research should be directed towards comparison of different quantities and types of carbohydrate in multicomponent fortifiers containing protein and minerals, specifically evaluating short-term growth and long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Other 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 March 2008.
All research outputs
#5,234,584
of 16,429,373 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,923
of 11,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,840
of 241,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,429,373 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 241,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.