| 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 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Papua New Guinea | 1 | 13% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 13% |
| South Africa | 1 | 13% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
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 5. 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 24 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,025,306
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,523
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,816
of 362,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 362,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.