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 |
Maternal perspectives on the use of probiotics in infants: a cross-sectional survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6882-14-366 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah L Bridgman, Meghan B Azad, Catherine J Field, Nicole Letourneau, David W Johnston, Bonnie J Kaplan, Anita L Kozyrskyj |
| Abstract |
Probiotic products that may modify the intestinal microbiota are becoming increasingly available and known to consumers due to their potential to prevent or treat many pediatric health conditions. As scientific knowledge of the health benefits of probiotics increases, it is important to identify factors that may prevent their successful integration into patient care as well as to ensure effective translation of research findings. The aim of this study was to describe maternal perspectives on probiotics and their use in infants. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
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 07 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,786,597
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,833
of 3,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,342
of 252,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#60
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 252,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.