↓ Skip to main content

Home fortification of foods with multiple micronutrient powders for health and nutrition in children under two years of age

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
280 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
Home fortification of foods with multiple micronutrient powders for health and nutrition in children under two years of age
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008959.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luz Maria De-Regil, Parminder S Suchdev, Gunn E Vist, Silke Walleser, Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas

Abstract

Vitamin and mineral deficiencies, particularly those of iron, vitamin A and zinc, affect more than two billion people worldwide. Young children are highly vulnerable because of rapid growth and inadequate dietary practices. Micronutrient powders (MNP) are single-dose packets containing multiple vitamins and minerals in powder form that can be sprinkled onto any semi-solid food.The use of MNP for home or point-of-use fortification of complementary foods has been proposed as an intervention for improving micronutrient intake in children under two years of age.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 271 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 21%
Researcher 48 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 15%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Other 20 7%
Other 46 16%
Unknown 34 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 113 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 13%
Social Sciences 25 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 3%
Other 37 13%
Unknown 43 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#566,574
of 13,725,722 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,730
of 10,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,430
of 97,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,725,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,732 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 97,715 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.