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 |
Continuous versus bolus intragastric tube feeding for preterm and low birth weight infants with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009719.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robyn Richards, Jann P Foster, Kim Psaila |
| Abstract |
Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is a particularly common condition in preterm and low birth weight infants. These infants are also more likely to have excessive regurgitation, as they do not have a fully developed antireflux mechanism. Preterm and low birth weight infants who are unable to suck oral feeds are required to be fed via an intragastric tube for varying lengths of time. Intragastric tube feeding can be delivered by the intermittent bolus or continuous feeding method. Use of continuous or intermittent bolus intragastric feeding may have a positive or negative effect on the incidence or severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 31 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 17% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 39 | 32% |
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 07 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,814,057
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,628
of 12,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,645
of 205,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#217
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 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 12,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 205,689 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 230 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.