↓ Skip to main content

Micronutrient powders to combat anemia in young children: does it work?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Micronutrient powders to combat anemia in young children: does it work?
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0867-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank T. Wieringa

Abstract

In developing countries, anemia and iron deficiency in early childhood are two highly prevalent public health problems. Providing caregivers with a powder containing multiple vitamins and minerals (also known as micronutrient powder or MNP) as a food supplement is a widely used strategy to combat these problems. However, concerns exist around MNP programs with regards to effectiveness and potential negative impact on diarrheal disease prevalence and gut flora. Teshome et al. (BMC Medicine 15:89, 2017) recently tested a MNP with a new iron formulation, iron-EDTA, which has a potentially higher bioavailability and thus requires a lower iron content. Nevertheless, neither the new formulation nor the standard formulation decreased anemia prevalence as compared to a control MNP without iron. However, in all groups, anemia prevalence was reduced after 30 days of intervention, and iron deficiency prevalence was significantly lower in children receiving iron-EDTA, showing that the new formulation holds promise. More research is needed to verify whether the lower iron content of these MNPs can also reduce the prevalence of associated side effects.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0839-z .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Chemistry 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,459,013
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,076
of 3,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,260
of 310,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#44
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 310,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.