| Title |
Re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012940.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thangaraj Abiramalatha, Sivam Thanigainathan, Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry Ramaswamy, Balakrishnan Rajaiah, Srinivas Ramakrishnan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 3 | 38% |
| South Africa | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 8 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,638,373
of 24,641,620 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,389
of 12,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,398
of 351,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,641,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 351,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 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 53% of its contemporaries.