↓ Skip to main content

Early discharge with home support of gavage feeding for stable preterm infants who have not established full oral feeds

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Early discharge with home support of gavage feeding for stable preterm infants who have not established full oral feeds
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003743.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmel T Collins, Maria Makrides, Andrew J McPhee

Abstract

Early discharge of stable preterm infants still requiring gavage feeds offers the benefits of uniting families sooner and reducing healthcare and family costs compared with discharge home when on full sucking feeds. Potential disadvantages of early discharge include increased care burden for the family and risk of complications related to gavage feeding. To determine the effects of a policy of early discharge of stable preterm infants with home support of gavage feeding compared with a policy of discharge of such infants when they have reached full sucking feeds.We planned subgroup analyses to determine whether safety and efficacy outcomes are altered by the type of support received (outpatient visits vs home support) or by the maturity of the infants discharged (gestational age ≤ 28 weeks at birth or birth weight ≤ 1000 grams). We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, together with searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015) and MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015). We found no new trials. We included all randomised and quasi-randomised trials among infants born at < 37 weeks and requiring no intravenous nutrition at the point of discharge. Trials were required to compare early discharge home with gavage feeds and healthcare support versus later discharge home when full sucking feeds were attained. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We conducted study authors for additional information. We performed data analysis in accordance with the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We included in the review data from one quasi-randomised trial with 88 infants from 75 families. Infants in the early discharge programme with home gavage feeding had a mean hospital stay that was 9.3 days shorter (mean difference (MD) -9.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.49 to -0.11) than that of infants in the control group. Infants in the early discharge programme also had lower risk of clinical infection during the home gavage period compared with those in the control group spending corresponding time in hospital (risk ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.69). No significant differences were noted between groups in duration and extent of breast feeding, weight gain, re-admission within the first 12 months post discharge from the home gavage programme or from hospital, scores reflecting parental satisfaction or overall health service use. Experimental evidence on the benefits and risks for preterm infants of early discharge from hospital with home gavage feeding compared with later discharge upon attainment of full sucking feeds is limited to the results of one small quasi-randomised controlled trial. High-quality trials with concealed allocation, complete follow-up of all randomly assigned infants and adequate sample size are needed before practice recommendations can be made.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 1%
Other 2 1%
Student > Master 1 <1%
Unknown 132 96%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Unknown 132 96%

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 10 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,554,578
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,883
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,961
of 231,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#213
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 231,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.