↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Neonatal vitamin A supplementation for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in term neonates in low and middle income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
Neonatal vitamin A supplementation for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in term neonates in low and middle income countries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006980.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Batool A Haider, Renee Sharma, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Abstract

Vitamin A deficiency is a major public health problem in low and middle income countries. Vitamin A supplementation in children six months of age and older has been found to be beneficial, but no effect of supplementation has been noted for children between one and five months of age. Supplementation during the neonatal period has been suggested to have an impact by increasing body stores in early infancy. To evaluate the role of vitamin A supplementation for term neonates in low and middle income countries with respect to prevention of mortality and morbidity. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 13 March 2016), Embase (1980 to 13 March 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 13 March 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. Also trials with a factorial design. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted study data. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. We included 12 trials (168,460 neonates) in this review, with only a few trials reporting disaggregated data for term infants. Therefore, we analysed data and presented estimates for term infants (when specified) and for all infants.Data for term neonates from three studies did not show a statistically significant effect on the risk of infant mortality at six months in the vitamin A group compared with the control group (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.18; I(2) = 63%). Analysis of data for all infants from 11 studies revealed no evidence of a significant reduction in the risk of infant mortality at six months among neonates supplemented with vitamin A compared with control neonates (typical RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07; I(2) = 47%). We observed similar results for infant mortality at 12 months of age with no significant effect of vitamin A compared with control (typical RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15; I(2) = 47%). Limited data were available for the outcomes of cause-specific mortality and morbidity, vitamin A deficiency, anaemia and adverse events. Given the high burden of death among children younger than five years of age in low and middle income countries, and the fact that mortality in infancy is a major contributory cause, it is critical to obtain sound scientific evidence of the effect of vitamin A supplementation during the neonatal period on infant mortality and morbidity. Evidence provided in this review does not indicate a potential beneficial effect of vitamin A supplementation among neonates at birth in reducing mortality during the first six months or 12 months of life. Given this finding and the absence of a clear indication of the biological mechanism through which vitamin A could affect mortality, along with substantial conflicting findings from individual studies conducted in settings with potentially varying levels of maternal vitamin A deficiency and infant mortality, absence of follow-up studies assessing any long-term impact of a bulging fontanelle after supplementation and the finding of a potentially harmful effect among female infants, additional research is warranted before a decision can be reached regarding policy recommendations for this intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 262 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 15%
Student > Bachelor 35 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Researcher 27 10%
Other 13 5%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 76 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 13%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 9 3%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 86 33%

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 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,748,730
of 21,223,235 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,029
of 12,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,963
of 277,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,223,235 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 12,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. 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 277,180 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 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 61% of its contemporaries.