| Title |
Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001970.pub5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire |
| Abstract |
The introduction of enteral feeds for very preterm (less than 32 weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (VLBW; less than 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
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 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 273 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 13% |
| Researcher | 34 | 12% |
| Other | 20 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 53 | 19% |
| Unknown | 69 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 127 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 2% |
| Psychology | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 86 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,600,272
of 23,504,694 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,689
of 12,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,971
of 365,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,694 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 365,083 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 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 67% of its contemporaries.