↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
304 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
305 Mendeley
Title
Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002971.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Quigley, William McGuire

Abstract

When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, alternative sources of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula. Donor breast milk may retain some of the non-nutritive benefits of maternal breast milk for preterm or low birth weight infants. However, feeding with artificial formula may ensure more consistent delivery of optimal levels of nutrients. Uncertainty exists about the balance of risks and benefits of feeding formula versus donor breast milk for preterm or low birth weight infants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 305 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 292 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 54 18%
Student > Master 51 17%
Researcher 41 13%
Other 30 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Other 62 20%
Unknown 42 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 23 8%
Unknown 56 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#557,606
of 18,780,663 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,262
of 11,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,551
of 200,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,780,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 200,166 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.