↓ Skip to main content

Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003959.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanis R Fenton, Shahirose S Premji, Heidi Al-Wassia, Reg S Sauve

Abstract

The ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants is still a matter of debate. Protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 106 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 21%
Student > Master 20 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Unspecified 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Other 31 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 50%
Unspecified 20 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 14 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,584,934
of 12,576,786 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,501
of 10,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,716
of 189,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,576,786 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 189,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.