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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Feeding Problems and Their Underlying Mechanisms in the Esophageal Atresia–Tracheoesophageal Fistula Patient
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fped.2017.00127 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Mahoney, Rachel Rosen |
| Abstract |
Feeding difficulties such as dysphagia, coughing, choking, or vomiting during meals, slow eating, oral aversion, food refusal, and stressful mealtimes are common in children with repaired esophageal atresia (EA) and the reasons for this are often multifactorial. The aim of this review is to describe the possible underlying mechanisms contributing to feeding difficulties in patients with EA and approaches to management. Underlying mechanisms for these feeding difficulties include esophageal dysphagia, oropharyngeal dysphagia and aspiration, and aversions related to prolonged gastrostomy tube feeding. The initial diagnostic evaluation for feeding difficulties in a patient with EA may involve an esophagram, videofluoroscopic imaging or fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation during swallowing, upper endoscopy with biopsies, pH-impedance testing, and/or esophageal motility studies. The main goal of management is to reduce the factors contributing to feeding difficulties and may include reducing esophageal stasis, maximizing reflux therapies, treating underlying lung disease, dilating strictures, and altering feeding methods, routes, or schedules. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 28 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
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 01 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,349,470
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,079
of 6,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,808
of 316,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#43
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 316,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.