↓ Skip to main content

Continuous versus bolus intragastric tube feeding for preterm and low birth weight infants with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
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.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 27%
Unspecified 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Other 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 21%
Unspecified 11 16%
Psychology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 4 6%

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
#11,143,440
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,177
of 192,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#201
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 192,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.