↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
Title
Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus early nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005384.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brigitte Lemyre, Matthew Laughon, Carl Bose, Peter G Davis

Abstract

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a strategy for maintaining positive airway pressure throughout the respiratory cycle through the application of bias flow of respiratory gas to an apparatus attached to the nose. Treatment with NCPAP is associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation and might be effective in reducing chronic lung disease. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a form of noninvasive ventilation during which patients are exposed intermittently to higher levels of airway pressure, along with NCPAP through the same nasal device. To examine the risks and benefits of early NIPPV versus early NCPAP alone for preterm infants at risk of or in respiratory distress within the first hours after birth.Primary endpoints are respiratory failure and the need for intubated ventilatory support during the first week of life. Secondary endpoints include chronic lung disease (CLD) (oxygen therapy at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age), air leaks, duration of respiratory support, duration of oxygen therapy, intraventricular hemorrhage, and incidence of mortality. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to September 28, 2015), Embase (1980 to September 28, 2015), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to September 28, 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. A member of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group handsearched abstracts from the European Society of Pediatric Research (ESPR). We contacted the authors of ongoing clinical trials to ask for information. We considered all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Studies selected compared NIPPV versus NCPAP treatment, starting at birth or shortly thereafter in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestational age). We performed data collection and analysis using the recommendations of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Ten trials, enrolling a total of 1061 infants, met criteria for inclusion in this review. Meta-analyses of these studies showed significantly reduced risk of meeting respiratory failure criteria (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; typical risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.04) and needing intubation (typical RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; typical RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02) among infants treated with early NIPPV compared with early NCPAP. The meta-analysis did not demonstrate a reduction in the risk of CLD among infants randomized to NIPPV (typical RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06). Investigators observed no evidence of harm. Review authors graded the quality of the evidence as moderate (unblinded studies). Early NIPPV does appear to be superior to NCPAP alone for decreasing respiratory failure and the need for intubation and endotracheal tube ventilation among preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Additional studies are needed to confirm these results and to assess the safety of NIPPV compared with NCPAP alone in a larger patient population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 287 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 13%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Other 23 8%
Researcher 21 7%
Student > Postgraduate 20 7%
Other 73 25%
Unknown 79 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 12%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 89 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,661,207
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,318
of 12,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,074
of 420,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 420,880 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 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 52% of its contemporaries.