↓ Skip to main content

Medications for increasing milk supply in mothers expressing breastmilk for their preterm hospitalised infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Medications for increasing milk supply in mothers expressing breastmilk for their preterm hospitalised infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005544.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy J Donovan, Kerry Buchanan

Abstract

Breastmilk remains the optimal form of enteral nutrition for term and preterm infants until up to six months postnatal age. Mothers of preterm infants who have not established suck feeds must express their breastmilk and often have difficulty in maintaining sufficient volume for their infants' needs (Donath 2008). In preterm infants, donor breastmilk reduced the occurrence of necrotising enterocolitis, when compared with formula feeds (McGuire 2003). Also, case-control studies have suggested that breastmilk is associated with an improvement in feeding tolerance, a reduction in significant gastrointestinal infective events (Beeby 1992) and a reduction in late-onset sepsis (Schanler 1999) when compared with formula feeds in preterm hospitalised infants.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 85 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Other 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Unspecified 8 9%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 16 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#728,349
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,769
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,153
of 109,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 109,767 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 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.