↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Body positioning for spontaneously breathing preterm infants with apnoea

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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Body positioning for spontaneously breathing preterm infants with apnoea
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004951.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rami A Ballout, Jann P Foster, Lara A Kahale, Lina Badr

Abstract

It has been proposed that body positioning in preterm infants, as compared with other, more invasive measures, may be an effective method of reducing clinically significant apnoea. To determine effects of body positioning on cardiorespiratory parameters in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with clinically significant apnoea.Subgroup analyses examined effects of body positioning of spontaneously breathing preterm infants with apnoea from the following subgroups.• Gestational age < 28 weeks or birth weight less than 1000 grams.• Apnoea managed with methylxanthines.• Frequent apnoea (> 10 events/d).• Type of apnoea measured (central vs mixed vs obstructive) SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 14 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 14 November 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 2016 November 14). We also searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials with parallel, factorial or cross-over design comparing the impact of different body positions on apnoea in spontaneously breathing preterm infants were eligible for our review. We assessed trial quality, data extraction and synthesis of data using standard methods of the CNRG. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. The search conducted in November 2016 identified no new studies. Five studies (N = 114) were eligible for inclusion. None of the individual studies nor meta-analyses showed a reduction in apnoea, bradycardia, oxygen desaturation or oxygen saturation with body positioning (supine vs prone; prone vs right lateral; prone vs left lateral; right lateral vs left lateral; prone horizontal vs prone head elevated; right lateral horizontal vs right lateral head elevated, left lateral horizontal vs left lateral head elevated). We found insufficient evidence to determine effects of body positioning on apnoea, bradycardia and oxygen saturation in preterm infants. No new studies have been conducted since the original review was published. Large, multi-centre studies are warranted to provide conclusive evidence, but it may be plausible to conclude that positioning of spontaneously breathing preterm infants has no effect on their cardiorespiratory parameters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 29%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 27 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 08 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,420,182
of 17,364,317 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,604
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,781
of 394,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,364,317 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 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 394,823 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 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 65% of its contemporaries.