↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotics at the time of removal of central venous catheter to reduce morbidity and mortality in newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
81 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotics at the time of removal of central venous catheter to reduce morbidity and mortality in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012181.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rowena L McMullan, Adrienne Gordon

Abstract

Late-onset sepsis is associated with increased rates of mortality and morbidity in newborn infants, in addition to poorer long-term developmental outcomes and increased length of stay and hospital costs. Central line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) is the most common cause of late-onset sepsis in hospitalised infants, and prevention of CLABSI is a key objective in neonatal care. Increased frequency of CLABSI around the time of removal of central venous catheters (CVCs) has been reported, and use of antibiotics at the time of removal may reduce the incidence and impact of late-onset sepsis in vulnerable newborn infants. To determine the efficacy and safety of giving antibiotics at the time of removal of a central venous catheter (CVC) for reduction of morbidity and mortality in newborn infants, in particular effects on late-onset sepsis. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group without language restriction to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 6 April 2017), Embase (1980 to 6 April 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 6 April 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised, quasi-randomised, and cluster-randomised trials considering use of any antibiotic or combination of antibiotics at the time of CVC removal in newborn infants compared with placebo, no antibiotics, or another antibiotic or combination of antibiotics. We extracted data using standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of, and extracted data from the included study. Only one randomised controlled trial was eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Forty-four of a total of 88 infants received two doses of cephazolin at the time of removal of CVC compared with no antibiotics at the time of removal of CVC in the control group. No infant in the intervention group developed late-onset sepsis after CVC removal compared with five of 44 (11%) in the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 1.60). Cephazolin given at the time of removal of CVC did not statistically significantly alter late-onset sepsis rates and led to no significant differences in any of the prespecified outcomes. Review authors judged the study to be of low quality because of high risk of bias and imprecision. Randomised controlled trials have provided inadequate evidence for assessment of the efficacy or safety of antibiotics given at the time of CVC removal. The single identified trial was underpowered to address this question. Future research should be directed towards targeting use of antibiotics upon removal of CVC for those at greatest risk of complications from CVC removal-related CLABSI. Researchers should include safety data such as impact upon antibiotic use and resistance patterns. This investigation would best occur as part of a bundle of quality improvement care interventions provided by neonatal networks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 13 8%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 56 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 16%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 61 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#473,043
of 18,929,457 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,018
of 11,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,675
of 289,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,929,457 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 289,700 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.