| Title |
Sweet-tasting solutions for needle-related procedural pain in infants one month to one year of age
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008411.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manal Kassab, Jann P Foster, Maralyn Foureur, Cathrine Fowler |
| Abstract |
Administration of oral sucrose or glucose with and without non-nutritive sucking is frequently used as a non-pharmacological intervention for needle-related procedural pain relief in infants. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| Brazil | 2 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Iceland | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 260 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 10% |
| Researcher | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 49 | 19% |
| Unknown | 78 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 15% |
| Psychology | 18 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 89 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 23 June 2021.
All research outputs
#632,827
of 24,138,997 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,221
of 12,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,629
of 286,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,138,997 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 286,473 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.