↓ 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 37 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 20%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 39 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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
#644,148
of 16,793,177 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,657
of 11,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,369
of 284,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,793,177 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 284,247 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 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.