↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters to prevent infection in newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
Title
Early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters to prevent infection in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012142.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrienne Gordon, Mark Greenhalgh, William McGuire

Abstract

Lengthy duration of use may be a risk factor for umbilical venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in newborn infants. Early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) is recommended to reduce the incidence of infection and associated morbidity and mortality. To compare the effectiveness of early planned removal of UVCs (up to two weeks after insertion) versus an expectant approach or a longer fixed duration in preventing bloodstream infection and other complications in newborn infants.To perform subgroup analyses by gestational age at birth and prespecified planned duration of UVC placement (see "Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity"). We used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Maternity & Infant Care Database (until May 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared effects of early planned removal of UVCs (up to two weeks after insertion) versus an expectant approach or a longer fixed duration in preventing bloodstream infection and other complications in newborn infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently undertook data extraction. We analysed treatment effects and reported risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using GRADE methods. We found one eligible trial. Participants were 210 newborn infants with birth weight less than 1251 grams. The trial was unblinded but otherwise of good methodological quality. This trial compared removal of an umbilical venous catheter within 10 days after insertion (and replacement with a peripheral cannula or a percutaneously inserted central catheter as required) versus expectant management (UVC in place up to 28 days). More infants in the early planned removal group than in the expectant management group (83 vs 33) required percutaneous insertion of a central catheter (PICC). Trial results showed no difference in the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.22), in hospital mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.98), in catheter-associated thrombus necessitating removal (RR 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 7.94), or in other morbidity. GRADE assessment indicated that the quality of evidence was "low" at outcome level principally as the result of imprecision and risk of surveillance bias due to lack of blinding in the included trial. Currently available trial data are insufficient to show whether early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters reduces risk of infection, mortality, or other morbidity in newborn infants. A large, simple, and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve this ongoing uncertainty.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 14%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 90 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 15%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 98 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 03 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,154,059
of 25,864,668 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,260
of 13,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,234
of 336,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,864,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 336,591 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 93% 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.