↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Routine vitamin A supplementation for the prevention of blindness due to measles infection in children

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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
Title
Routine vitamin A supplementation for the prevention of blindness due to measles infection in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007719.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Segun Bello, Martin M Meremikwu, Regina I Ejemot‐Nwadiaro, Olabisi Oduwole

Abstract

Reduced vitamin A concentration increases the risk of blindness in children infected with the measles virus. Promoting vitamin A supplementation in children with measles contributes to the control of blindness in children, which is a high priority within the World Health Organization (WHO) VISION 2020 The Right to Sight Program. To assess the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in children with measles without prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. We searched CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11, MEDLINE (1950 to December week 3, 2015), Embase (1974 to December 2015) and LILACS (1985 to December 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in well-nourished children diagnosed with measles but with no prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. For the original review, two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data on reported outcomes. We contacted trial authors of the included studies for additional information on unpublished data. We included two RCTs which were clinically heterogenous. We presented the continuous outcomes reported as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Due to marked clinical heterogeneity we considered it inappropriate to perform a meta-analysis. For the first publication of this review, two RCTs involving 260 children with measles which compared vitamin A with placebo met the inclusion criteria. Neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points. One trial of moderate quality suggested evidence of a significant increase in serum retinol levels in the vitamin A group one week after two doses of vitamin A (MD 9.45 µg/dL, 95% CI 2.19 to 16.71; 17 participants, moderate-quality evidence), but not six weeks after three doses of vitamin A (MD 2.56 µg/dL, 95% CI -5.28 to 10.40; 39 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in weight gain six weeks (MD 0.39 kg, -0.04 to 0.82; 48 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and six months (MD 0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.12; 36 participants, moderate-quality evidence) after three doses of vitamin A.The second trial found no significant difference in serum retinol levels two weeks after a single dose of vitamin A (MD 2.67 µg/dL, 95% CI -0.29 to 5.63; 155 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Percentage of undernutrition between the two groups did not differ significantly at one week (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54, 145 participants) and two weeks (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29, 147 participants) after a single dose of vitamin A. No adverse event was reported in either study. We did not find any new RCTS for this second update. We did not find any trials assessing whether or not vitamin A supplementation in children with measles prevents blindness, as neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Researcher 17 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Other 13 6%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 87 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 95 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 20 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,887,662
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,039
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,747
of 348,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#92
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 348,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.