↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Baby‐led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
Title
Baby‐led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009067.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Fallon, Deirdre Van der Putten, Cindy Dring, Edina H Moylett, Gerard Fealy, Declan Devane

Abstract

Baby-led breastfeeding is recommended as best practice in determining the frequency and duration of a breastfeed. An alternative approach is described as scheduled, where breastfeeding is timed and restricted in frequency and duration. It is necessary to review the evidence that supports current recommendations, so that women are provided with high-quality evidence to inform their feeding decisions. To evaluate the effects of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 February 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 23 February 2016), EThOS, Index to Theses and ProQuest database and World Health Organization's 1998 evidence to support the 'Ten Steps' to successful breastfeeding (10 May 2016). We planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised trials with randomisation at both the individual and cluster level. Studies presented in abstract form would have been eligible for inclusion if sufficient data were available. Studies using a cross-over design would not have been eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We would have resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author, but this was not necessary. No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review. This review demonstrates that there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of baby-led compared with scheduled (or mixed) breastfeeding for successful breastfeeding, for healthy newborns. It is recommended that no changes are made to current practice guidelines without undertaking robust research, to include many patterns of breastfeeding and not limited to baby-led and scheduled breastfeeding. Future exploratory research is needed on baby-led breastfeeding that takes the mother's perspective into consideration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 197 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 19%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Other 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 54 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 25%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 55 28%
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 22 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,639,631
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,510
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,772
of 330,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 330,349 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 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 62% of its contemporaries.