| Title |
Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001970.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W, Morgan, Jessie, Young, Lauren, McGuire, William |
| Abstract |
The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm (< 32 weeks) or very low birth weight (< 1500 g) infants is often delayed for several days or longer after birth due to concern that early introduction may not be tolerated and may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). However, delaying enteral feeding could diminish the functional adaptation of the gastrointestinal tract and prolong the need for parenteral nutrition with its attendant infectious and metabolic risks. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 24 | 42% |
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 07 August 2013.
All research outputs
#2,200,607
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,722
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,842
of 195,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 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 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 195,114 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 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 59% of its contemporaries.