↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Nipple Shields: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, October 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
The Use of Nipple Shields: A Review
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selina Chow, Ronald Chow, Marko Popovic, Henry Lam, Joav Merrick, Søren Ventegodt, Milica Milakovic, Michael Lam, Mila Popovic, Edward Chow, Jelena Popovic

Abstract

A nipple shield is a breastfeeding aid with a nipple-shaped shield that is positioned over the nipple and areola prior to nursing. Nipple shields are usually recommended to mothers with flat nipples or in cases in which there is a failure of the baby to effectively latch onto the breast within the first 2 days postpartum. The use of nipple shields is a controversial topic in the field of lactation. Its use has been an issue in the clinical literature since some older studies discovered reduced breast milk transfer when using nipple shields, while more recent studies reported successful breastfeeding outcomes. The purpose of this review was to examine the evidence and outcomes associated with nipple shield use. A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE Classic, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. The primary endpoint was any breastfeeding outcome following nipple shield use. Secondary endpoints included the reasons for nipple shield use and the average/median length of use. For the analysis, we examined the effect of nipple shield use on physiological responses, premature infants, mothers' experiences, and health professionals' experiences. The literature search yielded 261 articles, 14 of which were included in this review. Of these 14 articles, three reported on physiological responses, two reported on premature infants, eight reported on mothers' experiences, and one reported on health professionals' experiences. Through examining the use of nipple shields, further insight is provided on the advantages and disadvantages of this practice, thus allowing clinicians and researchers to address improvements on areas that will benefit mothers and infants the most.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 95 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 18%
Student > Master 15 15%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 22 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 25 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,407,855
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#541
of 9,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,249
of 279,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#7
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 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 9,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 279,777 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.