↓ Skip to main content

Fundoplication versus postoperative medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children with neurological impairment undergoing gastrostomy

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Fundoplication versus postoperative medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children with neurological impairment undergoing gastrostomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006151.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angharad Vernon-Roberts, Peter B Sullivan

Abstract

Children with neurological impairments frequently experience feeding difficulties, which can lead to malnutrition and growth failure. Gastrostomy feeding is now the preferred method of providing nutritional support to children with neurological impairments who are unable to feed adequately by mouth. Complications may arise as a result of gastrostomy placement, and the development or worsening of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) has been widely reported. This has led to the frequent use of surgical antireflux treatment in the form of a fundoplication, or other antireflux procedures. Fundoplication is associated with a high recurrence rate, surgical failure, and significant morbidity and mortality.Since proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were introduced in the 1990s, they have come to play a larger part in the medical management of GOR in children with neurological impairments. Uncontrolled studies suggest that PPIs may be a safe, appropriate treatment for GOR. Other agents currently used include milk thickeners, acid suppression drugs, acid buffering agents, gut motility stimulants and sodium alginate preparations.There are risks and benefits associated with both surgical and medical interventions and further comparison is necessary to determine the optimal treatment choice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Norway 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 139 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 19%
Student > Master 21 14%
Other 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 39 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 August 2013.
All research outputs
#10,024,022
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,554
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,912
of 154,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 154,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.