The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Feeding interventions for growth and development in infants with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003315.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alyson Bessell, Lee Hooper, William C Shaw, Sheena Reilly, Julie Reid, Anne‐Marie Glenny |
| Abstract |
Cleft lip and cleft palate are common birth defects, affecting about one baby of every 700 born. Feeding these babies is an immediate concern and there is evidence of delay in growth of children with a cleft as compared to those without clefting. In an effort to combat reduced weight for height, a variety of advice and devices are recommended to aid feeding of babies with clefts. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 26% |
| Spain | 3 | 13% |
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 26% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 430 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 429 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 84 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 7% |
| Researcher | 28 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 6% |
| Other | 74 | 17% |
| Unknown | 135 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 153 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 52 | 12% |
| Psychology | 18 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 2% |
| Other | 38 | 9% |
| Unknown | 143 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 14 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,753,523
of 26,371,446 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,566
of 13,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,713
of 121,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,371,446 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 121,061 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.