↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2019
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
Title
Re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2019
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012940.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thangaraj Abiramalatha, Sivam Thanigainathan, Umamaheswari Balakrishnan

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 160 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 55 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 21%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 59 37%

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 08 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,981,296
of 21,364,317 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,419
of 12,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,473
of 282,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,364,317 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 12,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 282,464 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 55% of its contemporaries.