↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms Affecting the Gut of Preterm Infants in Enteral Feeding Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Nutrition, May 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Mechanisms Affecting the Gut of Preterm Infants in Enteral Feeding Trials
Published in
Frontiers in Nutrition, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnut.2017.00014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas D. Embleton, Janet E. Berrington, Jon Dorling, Andrew K. Ewer, Edmund Juszczak, John A. Kirby, Christopher A. Lamb, Clare V. Lanyon, William McGuire, Christopher S. Probert, Stephen P. Rushton, Mark D. Shirley, Christopher J. Stewart, Stephen P. Cummings

Abstract

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in preterm infants offer unique opportunities for mechanistic evaluation of the risk factors leading to serious diseases, as well as the actions of interventions designed to prevent them. Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) a serious inflammatory gut condition and late-onset sepsis (LOS) are common feeding and nutrition-related problems that may cause death or serious long-term morbidity and are key outcomes in two current UK National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) trials. Speed of increasing milk feeds trial (SIFT) randomized preterm infants to different rates of increases in milk feeds with a primary outcome of survival without disability at 2 years corrected age. Enteral lactoferrin in neonates (ELFIN) randomizes infants to supplemental enteral lactoferrin or placebo with a primary outcome of LOS. This is a protocol for the mechanisms affecting the gut of preterm infants in enteral feeding trials (MAGPIE) study and is funded by the UK NIHR Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation programme. MAGPIE will recruit ~480 preterm infants who were enrolled in SIFT or ELFIN. Participation in MAGPIE does not change the main trial protocols and uses non-invasive sampling of stool and urine, along with any residual resected gut tissue if infants required surgery. Trial interventions may involve effects on gut microbes, metabolites (e.g., short-chain fatty acids), and aspects of host immune function. Current hypotheses suggest that NEC and/or LOS are due to a dysregulated immune system in the context of gut dysbiosis, but mechanisms have not been systematically studied within large RCTs. Microbiomic analysis will use next-generation sequencing, and metabolites will be assessed by mass spectrometry to detect volatile organic and other compounds produced by microbes or the host. We will explore differences between disease cases and controls, as well as exploring the actions of trial interventions. Impacts of this research are multiple: translation of knowledge of mechanisms promoting gut health may explain outcomes or suggest alternate strategies to improve health. Results may identify new non-invasive diagnostic or monitoring techniques, preventative or treatment strategies for NEC or LOS, or provide data useful for risk stratification in future studies. Mechanistic evaluation might be especially informative where there are not clear effects on the primary outcome (ISRCTN 12554594).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 35 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,719,400
of 24,482,039 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#948
of 6,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,462
of 314,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,482,039 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 314,952 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 57% of its contemporaries.