↓ Skip to main content

Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 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
Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001970.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire

Abstract

The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm (less than 32 weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (VLBW; less than 1500 g) infants is often delayed for several days or longer after birth due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). However, delaying enteral feeding could diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Malawi 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 195 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 19%
Researcher 36 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Other 18 9%
Other 69 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 60%
Unspecified 32 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 21 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#651,758
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,114
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,056
of 287,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 287,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.