↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Early versus delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
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

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
305 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
275 Mendeley
Title
Early versus delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001456.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicia L Bahadue, Roger Soll

Abstract

Clinical trials have confirmed that surfactant therapy is effective in improving the immediate need for respiratory support and the clinical outcome of premature newborns. Trials have studied a wide variety of surfactant preparations used either to prevent (prophylactic or delivery room administration) or treat (selective or rescue administration) respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Using either treatment strategy, significant reductions in the incidence of pneumothorax, as well as significant improvement in survival, have been noted. It is unclear whether there are any advantages to treating infants with respiratory insufficiency earlier in the course of RDS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 275 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 268 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 12%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Master 27 10%
Student > Postgraduate 26 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 9%
Other 60 22%
Unknown 78 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 24 9%
Unknown 81 29%
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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#4,559,299
of 25,388,229 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,953
of 12,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,036
of 189,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#137
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,229 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 12,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 189,424 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 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.