↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003952.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Watson, William McGuire

Abstract

Enteral feeding tubes for preterm or low birth weight infants may be placed via either the nose or mouth. Nasal placement may compromise respiration. However, orally placed tubes may be more prone to displacement, local irritation, and vagal stimulation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 134 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 33 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Unspecified 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 41 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,999,186
of 21,344,814 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,475
of 12,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,145
of 169,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,344,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. 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 169,900 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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 71% of its contemporaries.