↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Inhaled nitric oxide for respiratory failure in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
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 (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
Title
Inhaled nitric oxide for respiratory failure in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000509.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith J Barrington, Neil Finer, Thomas Pennaforte

Abstract

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is effective in term infants with hypoxic respiratory failure. The pathophysiology of respiratory failure and the potential risks of iNO differ substantially in preterm infants, necessitating specific study in this population. To determine effects of treatment with inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) on death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) or other serious brain injury and on adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm newborn infants with hypoxic respiratory failure.Owing to substantial variation in study eligibility criteria, which decreases the utility of an overall analysis, we divided participants post hoc into three groups: (1) infants treated over the first three days of life because of defects in oxygenation, (2) preterm infants with evidence of pulmonary disease treated routinely with iNO and (3) infants treated later (after three days of age) because of elevated risk of BPD. We used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library through January 2016. We also searched the abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies. Eligible for inclusion were randomised and quasi-randomised studies in preterm infants with respiratory disease that compared effects of iNO gas versus control, with or without placebo. We used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. We found 17 randomised controlled trials of iNO therapy in preterm infants. We grouped these trials post hoc into three categories on the basis of entry criteria: treatment during the first three days of life for impaired oxygenation, routine use in preterm babies along with respiratory support and later treatment for infants at increased risk for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). We performed no overall analyses.Eight trials providing early rescue treatment for infants on the basis of oxygenation criteria demonstrated no significant effect of iNO on mortality or BPD (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.01; 958 infants). Four studies examining routine use of iNO in infants with pulmonary disease reported no significant reduction in death or BPD (typical RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02; 1924 infants), although this small effect approached significance. Later treatment with iNO based on risk of BPD (three trials) revealed no significant benefit for this outcome in analyses of summary data (typical RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 1075 infants).Investigators found no clear effect of iNO on the frequency of all grades of IVH nor severe IVH. Early rescue treatment was associated with a non-significant 20% increase in severe IVH.We found no effect on the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment. iNO does not appear to be effective as rescue therapy for the very ill preterm infant. Early routine use of iNO in preterm infants with respiratory disease does not prevent serious brain injury or improve survival without BPD. Later use of iNO to prevent BPD could be effective, but current 95% confidence intervals include no effect; the effect size is likely small (RR 0.92) and requires further study.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 284 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 14%
Researcher 35 12%
Other 27 9%
Student > Bachelor 24 8%
Student > Postgraduate 22 8%
Other 60 21%
Unknown 76 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Unspecified 13 5%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 88 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,052,625
of 25,381,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,388
of 13,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,773
of 433,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 433,111 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 266 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 59% of its contemporaries.