↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vitamin A supplementation to prevent mortality and short- and long-term morbidity in very low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
322 Mendeley
Title
Vitamin A supplementation to prevent mortality and short- and long-term morbidity in very low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000501.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian A Darlow, P J Graham, Maria Ximena Rojas-Reyes

Abstract

Vitamin A is necessary for normal lung growth and the integrity of respiratory tract epithelial cells. Preterm infants have low vitamin A status at birth and this has been associated with an increased risk of developing chronic lung disease. To evaluate supplementation with vitamin A on the incidence of death or neonatal chronic lung disease and long-term neurodevelopmental disability in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants compared with a control (placebo or no supplementation), and to consider the effect of the supplementation route, dose, and timing. For the original review and subsequent updates, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials. The reference lists of relevant trials, paediatric and nutrition journals, and conference abstracts and proceedings were handsearched up to 2010.For the 2016 update, we used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1 May 2016), EMBASE (1 May 2016), and CINAHL (1 May 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin A supplementation with a control (placebo or no supplementation) or other dosage regimens in VLBW infants (birth weight ≤ 1500 grams or less than 32 weeks' gestation). Two review authors screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed the trials for risk of bias. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR), risk differences (RD), and number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Trialists were contacted for additional data. Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten trials (1460 infants) compared vitamin A supplementation with a control and one (120 infants) compared different regimens of vitamin A supplementation. Compared to the control group, vitamin A appeared to have a small benefit in reducing the risk of death or oxygen requirement at one month of age (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; NNTB 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 6 studies, 1165 infants) and the risk of chronic lung disease (oxygen requirement) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99; typical RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.01; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6 to 100; 5 studies, 986 infants) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a marginal reduction of the combined outcome of death or chronic lung disease (typical RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01; 4 studies, 1089 infants). Neurodevelopmental assessment of 88% of the surviving infants in the largest trial showed no difference between the groups at 18 to 22 months of age, corrected for prematurity (low-quality evidence). There is no evidence to support different vitamin A dosing regimens. No adverse effects of vitamin A supplementation were reported, but it was noted that intramuscular injections of vitamin A were painful. Whether clinicians decide to utilise repeat intramuscular doses of vitamin A to prevent chronic lung disease may depend upon the local incidence of this outcome and the value attached to achieving a modest reduction in the outcome balanced against the lack of other proven benefits and the acceptability of the treatment. Information on long-term neurodevelopmental status suggests no evidence of either benefit or harm from the intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 319 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 18%
Student > Bachelor 46 14%
Researcher 32 10%
Other 29 9%
Student > Postgraduate 24 7%
Other 71 22%
Unknown 63 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 10%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Other 31 10%
Unknown 76 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,072,583
of 16,109,038 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,784
of 11,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,324
of 267,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,109,038 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 11,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 267,048 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.