↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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.

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 176 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 170 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 14%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 9 5%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 62 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 70 40%
Attention Score in Context

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
#2,554,020
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,097
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,283
of 205,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 205,393 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 204 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 64% of its contemporaries.