↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Metoclopramide for post-pyloric placement of naso-enteral feeding tubes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Metoclopramide for post-pyloric placement of naso-enteral feeding tubes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003353.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristiane Costa Reis da Silva, Cathy Bennett, Humberto Saconato, Álvaro N Atallah

Abstract

Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate gastrointestinal function but who are unable to eat. Gastric feeding may be associated with higher rates of food aspiration and pneumonia than post-pyloric naso-enteral tubes. Thus, enteral feeding tubes are placed directly into the small intestine rather than the stomach, and the use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve post-pyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial. Moreover, metoclopramide may include adverse reactions, which with high doses or prolonged use may be serious and irreversible.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 July 2019.
All research outputs
#3,079,565
of 17,443,211 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,768
of 11,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,035
of 311,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,443,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. 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 311,771 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 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.