↓ Skip to main content

Handling of Breast Milk by Neonatal Units: Large Differences in Current Practices and Beliefs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Handling of Breast Milk by Neonatal Units: Large Differences in Current Practices and Beliefs
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Klotz, Stefanie Jansen, Corinna Gebauer, Hans Fuchs

Abstract

Background: Breast milk (BM) for premature infants is subjected to multiple steps of processing, storage and distribution. These steps may influence the quality and safety of BM. Guidelines concerning the use of mother's own milk are either not available or limited to specific aspects of BM handling and are based on evidence of variable strength. This may result in diverse BM handling routines by health care professionals. Objective: We surveyed neonatal units to increase the knowledge about the current practice of BM handling routines of mother's own milk and to identify controversial aspects that could give directions for future research. Methods: An online-based questionnaire was sent to 307 different neonatal departments providing level III to level I neonatal care within Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Practices concerning screening for cytomegalovirus and BM bacteria, pasteurization, fortification, storage, workforce and the incidence of BM administration errors were surveyed. Results: A total of 152 units, 56% of contacted level III units and 51% of level II units, participated in the survey (Germany 53%, Switzerland 71%, and Austria 56%). We found differences concerning indication and method of CMV inactivation (performed by 58%), bacterial count screening (48%) and bacterial count reduction (17%) within participating units. Thirty different thresholds for bacterial BM counts were reported by 65 units, resulting in pasteurization or discarding of BM. The use of nutrient analysis (12%) and fortification regimens in addition to standard multicomponent fortifiers (58%) using either individual (93%), targeted (3%), or adjusted (4%) fortification protocols varied profoundly. There is a high variability in staff and available facilities for BM handling. 73% of units report about BM administration errors. Conclusion: There is a wide variability in most aspects of BM handling in the participating units. Despite limited evidence labor and cost intensive procedures are applied which may have an impact on BM quality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 26%
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,105,865
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#690
of 6,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,997
of 335,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#21
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,392 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.