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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
United States | 1 | 6% |
Australia | 1 | 6% |
Spain | 1 | 6% |
Philippines | 1 | 6% |
Saudi Arabia | 1 | 6% |
Papua New Guinea | 1 | 6% |
Korea, Republic of | 1 | 6% |
France | 1 | 6% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 8 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 178 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 19 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
Researcher | 17 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 5% |
Other | 25 | 14% |
Unknown | 76 | 43% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 20% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 19% |
Social Sciences | 6 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
Other | 15 | 8% |
Unknown | 81 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 31 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,132,195
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,895
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,066
of 361,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 361,670 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 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.