Andréa Monteiro Correia Medeiros, Blenda Karen Batista Ramos, Déborah Letticia Santana Santos Bomfim, Conceição Lima Alvelos, Talita Cardoso da Silva, Ikaro Daniel de Carvalho Barreto, Felipe Batista Santos, Ricardo Queiroz Gurgel
Abstract
Purpose Measure the intervention time required for transition from gavage to exclusive oral feeding, comparing newborns exposed exclusively to the mother's breast with those who, in addition to breastfeeding, received supplementation using a cup or baby bottle. Methods Analytical, longitudinal, cohort study conducted with 165 newborns (NB) divided into groups according to severity of medical complications (G1-with no complications; G2-with significant complications), and into subgroups according to feeding mechanism (A and B). All NBs were low birth weight, on Kangaroo Mother Care, and breast stimulated according to medical prescription and hospital routine. Regarding feeding pattern, subgroup A comprised NBs exclusively breastfed at hospital discharge, whereas subgroup B was composed of NBs fed through cup/bottle at some time during hospitalization. The number of days spent in each stage of transition was recorded for each NB. Results History of clinical complications significantly influenced total intervention time. Study participants in subgroups G1-A (10 days), G1-B (9 days), and G2-A (12 days) displayed greater chances of early discharge compared with those in subgroup G2-B (16 days). Conclusion NBs with no important history of clinical complications displayed greater chances of early hospital discharge. NBs with significant history of clinical complications that underwent gavage to exclusive breastfeeding transition presented smaller intervention time than those that required supplementation using cup/bottle. Feeding transition using the gavage-to-exclusive oral feeding technique is recommended for Speech-language Pathology practice in Neonatology.
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 27 September 2019.
All research outputs
#16,462,378
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#35
of 92 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,397
of 345,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 345,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them
