↓ Skip to main content

Community-based supplementary feeding for promoting the growth of children under five years of age in low and middle income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 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
Community-based supplementary feeding for promoting the growth of children under five years of age in low and middle income countries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005039.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanina Sguassero, Mercedes de Onis, Ana María Bonotti, Guillermo Carroli

Abstract

Supplementary feeding is defined as the provision of extra food to children or families beyond the normal ration of their home diets. The impact of food supplementation on child growth merits careful evaluation in view of the reliance of many states and non-governmental organisations on this intervention to improve child health in low and middle income countries (LMIC). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 266 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 22%
Researcher 50 18%
Student > Bachelor 36 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 12%
Student > Postgraduate 17 6%
Other 54 19%
Unknown 28 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Social Sciences 23 8%
Psychology 13 5%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 41 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,797,916
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,880
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,169
of 118,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#50
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 118,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 51% of its contemporaries.