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
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
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
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.