↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Enteral feeding pumps: efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Enteral feeding pumps: efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2014
DOI 10.2147/mder.s50050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen White, Linsey King

Abstract

Enteral feeding is a long established practice across pediatric and adult populations, to enhance nutritional intake and prevent malnutrition. Despite recognition of the importance of nutrition within the modern health agenda, evaluation of the efficacy of how such feeds are delivered is more limited. The accuracy, safety, and consistency with which enteral feed pump systems dispense nutritional formulae are important determinants of their use and acceptability. Enteral feed pump safety has received increased interest in recent years as enteral pumps are used across hospital and home settings. Four areas of enteral feed pump safety have emerged: the consistent and accurate delivery of formula; the minimization of errors associated with tube misconnection; the impact of continuous feed delivery itself (via an enteral feed pump); and the chemical composition of the casing used in enteral feed pump manufacture. The daily use of pumps in delivery of enteral feeds in a home setting predominantly falls to the hands of parents and caregivers. Their understanding of the use and function of their pump is necessary to ensure appropriate, safe, and accurate delivery of enteral nutrition; their experience with this is important in informing clinicians and manufacturers of the emerging needs and requirements of this diverse patient population. The review highlights current practice and areas of concern and establishes our current knowledge in this field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Researcher 13 13%
Other 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Engineering 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 27 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,841,711
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#157
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,827
of 240,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. 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 240,273 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.