↓ Skip to main content

Challenges of infant nutrition research: a commentary

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Challenges of infant nutrition research: a commentary
Published in
Nutrition Journal, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12937-016-0162-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan S. Ryan, William W. Hay

Abstract

Considerable advances have been made in the field of infant feeding research. The last few decades have witnessed the expansion in the number of studies on the composition and benefits of human milk. The practice of breastfeeding and use of human milk represent today's reference standards for infant feeding and nutrition. Additional research regarding the benefits of breastfeeding is needed to determine which factors in human milk and in the act of breastfeeding itself, singly or in combination, are most important for producing the beneficial effects on infant growth, body composition, and neurodevelopmental outcome. We examine evidence that breastfeeding confers health benefits and offer suggestions on how best to interpret the data and present it to the public. We also describe some examples of well-designed infant nutrition studies that provide useful and clinically meaningful data regarding infant feeding, growth, and development. Because not all mothers choose to breastfeed or can breastfeed, other appropriate feeding options should be subjected to critical review to help establish how infant formula and bottle feeding can confer benefits similar to those of human milk and the act of breastfeeding. We conclude with the overarching point that the goal of infant feeding research is to promote optimal infant growth and development. Since parents/families may take different paths to feeding their infants, it is fundamental that health professionals understand how best to interpret research studies and their findings to support optimal infant growth and development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 150 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 5%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 49 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 55 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,847,187
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,121
of 1,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,021
of 298,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#23
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 298,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.