↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Extubation from low-rate intermittent positive airway pressure versus extubation after a trial of endotracheal continuous positive airway pressure in intubated preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Extubation from low-rate intermittent positive airway pressure versus extubation after a trial of endotracheal continuous positive airway pressure in intubated preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001078
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter G Davis, David J Henderson-Smart

Abstract

Failure of extubation and subsequent reintubation may result in additional stress and trauma to the premature infant. Testing infants about to be extubated with a period of endotracheal CPAP has been suggested as a method of demonstrating readiness for extubation. However, this process has been criticized as increasing the neonate's work of breathing and perhaps increasing the likelihood of extubation failure. In premature infants having their endotracheal tube removed, is direct extubation from low rate intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) more successful than that following a period of endotracheal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)? The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group as outlined in the Cochrane Library was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal hand searching mainly in the English language. All trials using random or quasi-random allocation of premature infants to endotracheal CPAP or direct extubation following a period of IPPV were included. Data were extracted using standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author and synthesis of data using relative risk. Direct extubation from low rate ventilation is associated with a trend to increased chance of successful extubation when compared to extubation after a period of endotracheal CPAP, RR 0.45 (0.19,1.07), RD -0.103 (-0.200,-0.006), NNT 10 (5,167). When only truly randomized trials are considered, this result becomes both statistically significant and clinically important, RR 0.10 (0.01,0.78), RD -0.201 (-0.319,-0.083), NNT 5 (3,12). Similar differences are seen for the secondary outcome, apnea. Preterm infants no longer requiring endotracheal intubation and IPPV should be directly extubated without a trial of ETT CPAP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Psychology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 30 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 December 2020.
All research outputs
#13,139,066
of 19,798,657 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,382
of 11,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,418
of 383,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#202
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,798,657 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 383,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.