↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Instruments for assessing readiness to commence suck feeds in preterm infants: effects on time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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 (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 Mendeley
Title
Instruments for assessing readiness to commence suck feeds in preterm infants: effects on time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005586.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda Crowe, Anne Chang, Karen Wallace

Abstract

One of the most challenging milestones for preterm infants is the acquisition of safe and efficient feeding skills. The majority of healthy full term infants are born with skills to coordinate their suck, swallow and respiration. However, this is not the case for preterm infants who develop these skills gradually as they transition from tube feeding to suck feeds. For preterm infants the ability to engage in oral feeding behaviour is dependent on many factors. The complexity of factors influencing feeding readiness has led some researchers to investigate the use of an individualised assessment of an infant's abilities. A limited number of instruments that aim to indicate an individual infant's readiness to commence either breast or bottle feeding have been developed. To determine the effects of using a feeding readiness instrument when compared to no instrument or another instrument on the outcomes of time to establish full oral feeding and duration of hospitalisations. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 22 February 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 22 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing a formal instrument to assess a preterm infant's readiness to commence suck feeds with either no instrument (usual practice) or another feeding readiness instrument. The standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal were used. Two authors independently screened potential studies for inclusion. No studies were found that met our inclusion criteria. No studies met the inclusion criteria. There is currently no evidence to inform clinical practice, with no studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Research is needed in this area to establish an evidence base for the clinical utility of implementing the use of an instrument to assess feeding readiness in the preterm infant population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 250 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 17 7%
Researcher 17 7%
Other 74 29%
Unknown 68 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 68 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 68 27%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Psychology 6 2%
Neuroscience 3 1%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 80 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,966,051
of 25,391,066 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,673
of 12,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,915
of 353,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#115
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,066 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 12,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 353,379 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.