↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Gastrostomy feeding versus oral feeding alone for children with cerebral palsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
Title
Gastrostomy feeding versus oral feeding alone for children with cerebral palsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003943.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sapthagiri Gantasala, Peter B Sullivan, Adrian G Thomas

Abstract

Children with cerebral palsy can be significantly disabled in terms of their ability to suck, chew and swallow. This can lead to significant impairment in feeding and, eventually, to undernutrition. It can also result in aspiration of food into the lungs. Length of feeding time may be considerably increased and, instead of being an enjoyable experience, mealtimes may be distressing for both child and carer. For children unable to maintain a normal nutritional state feeding by mouth, gastrostomy or jejunostomy tubes are increasingly being used to provide the digestive system with nutrients. A gastrostomy tube is a feeding tube inserted surgically through the abdominal wall directly into the stomach. A jejunostomy feeding tube is inserted into the jejunum, part of the small intestine, either directly or via a previous gastrostomy. Although gastrostomy or jejunostomy placement may greatly facilitate the feeding of children with cerebral palsy, many carers find it very emotionally difficult to accept this intervention. Moreover, the intervention is costly and there is the possibility of complications. The effectiveness and safety of the treatment requires further assessment. This review is an update of one previously published in 2004.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
France 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 196 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 20%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Other 45 22%
Unknown 31 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 16%
Psychology 11 5%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 46 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 February 2021.
All research outputs
#5,147,952
of 17,475,439 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,610
of 11,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,043
of 166,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,475,439 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 166,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.