↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Transcutaneous bilirubinometry versus total serum bilirubin measurement for newborns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2023
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Transcutaneous bilirubinometry versus total serum bilirubin measurement for newborns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012660.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles I Okwundu, Abiola Olowoyeye, Olalekan A Uthman, Johan Smith, Charles S Wiysonge, Vinod K Bhutani, Michelle Fiander, Kanekal S Gautham

Abstract

Jaundice is a very common condition in newborns, affecting up to 60% of term newborns and 80% of preterm newborns in the first week of life. Jaundice is caused by increased bilirubin in the blood from the breakdown of red blood cells. The gold standard for measuring bilirubin levels is obtaining a blood sample and processing it in a laboratory. However, noninvasive transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) measurement devices are widely available and used in many settings to estimate total serum bilirubin (TSB) levels. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transcutaneous bilirubin measurement for detecting hyperbilirubinaemia in newborns. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trial registries up to 18 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews for other potentially eligible studies. We included cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies that evaluated the accuracy of any TcB device compared to TSB measurement in term or preterm newborn infants (0 to 28 days postnatal age). All included studies provided sufficient data and information to create a 2 × 2 table for the calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivities and specificities. We excluded studies that only reported correlation coefficients. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria to all citations from the search and extracted data from the included studies using a standard data extraction form. We summarised the available results narratively and, where possible, we combined study data in a meta-analysis. We included 23 studies, involving 5058 participants. All studies had low risk of bias as measured by the QUADAS 2 tool. The studies were conducted in different countries and settings, included newborns of different gestational and postnatal ages, compared various TcB devices (including the JM 101, JM 102, JM 103, BiliChek, Bilitest and JH20-1C) and used different cutoff values for a positive result. In most studies, the TcB measurement was taken from the forehead, sternum, or both. The sensitivity of various TcB cutoff values to detect significant hyperbilirubinaemia ranged from 74% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 18% to 89%. The high sensitivity of TcB to detect hyperbilirubinaemia suggests that TcB devices are reliable screening tests for ruling out hyperbilirubinaemia in newborn infants. Positive test results would require confirmation through serum bilirubin measurement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 12 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 16 64%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,484,547
of 25,369,304 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,177
of 11,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,441
of 391,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,369,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 391,873 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 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 70% of its contemporaries.