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 |
Association between funding source, methodological quality and research outcomes in randomized controlled trials of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics added to infant formula: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-137 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary N Mugambi, Alfred Musekiwa, Martani Lombard, Taryn Young, Reneé Blaauw |
| Abstract |
There is little or no information available on the impact of funding by the food industry on trial outcomes and methodological quality of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics research in infants. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological quality, outcomes of food industry sponsored trials versus non industry sponsored trials, with regards to supplementation of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in infant formula. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Chile | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 104 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 05 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,083,960
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#484
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,525
of 215,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 215,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.