↓ Skip to main content

Enteral iron supplementation in preterm and low birth weight 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Enteral iron supplementation in preterm and low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005095.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan John Mills, Mark W Davies

Abstract

Preterm infants are at risk of exhausting their body iron stores much earlier than healthy term newborns. It is widespread practice to give enteral iron supplementation to preterm and low birth weight infants to prevent iron deficiency anaemia. However, it is unclear whether supplementing preterm and low birth weight infants with iron improves growth and neurodevelopment. It is suspected that excess exogenous iron can contribute to oxidative injury in preterm babies, causing or exacerbating conditions such as necrotising enterocolitis and retinopathy of prematurity. Additionally, the optimal dose and timing of commencement and cessation of iron supplementation are uncertain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 160 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 11 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 20 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,026,251
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,500
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,257
of 95,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 85 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 91st 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 95,824 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 71% of its contemporaries.