↓ Skip to main content

Gastrostomy feeding versus oral feeding alone for children with cerebral palsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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
Gastrostomy feeding versus oral feeding alone for children with cerebral palsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003943.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sapthagiri Gantasala, Peter B Sullivan, Adrian G Thomas

Abstract

Children with cerebral palsy can be significantly disabled in terms of their ability to suck, chew and swallow. This can lead to significant impairment in feeding and, eventually, to undernutrition. It can also result in aspiration of food into the lungs. Length of feeding time may be considerably increased and, instead of being an enjoyable experience, mealtimes may be distressing for both child and carer. For children unable to maintain a normal nutritional state feeding by mouth, gastrostomy or jejunostomy tubes are increasingly being used to provide the digestive system with nutrients. A gastrostomy tube is a feeding tube inserted surgically through the abdominal wall directly into the stomach. A jejunostomy feeding tube is inserted into the jejunum, part of the small intestine, either directly or via a previous gastrostomy. Although gastrostomy or jejunostomy placement may greatly facilitate the feeding of children with cerebral palsy, many carers find it very emotionally difficult to accept this intervention. Moreover, the intervention is costly and there is the possibility of complications. The effectiveness and safety of the treatment requires further assessment. This review is an update of one previously published in 2004.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Indonesia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 192 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 19%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Other 45 23%
Unknown 30 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 18%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Psychology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 46 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#3,177,155
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,547
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,930
of 152,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 152,566 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.