↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laryngeal mask airway versus bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation for neonatal resuscitation

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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
46 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
Title
Laryngeal mask airway versus bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation for neonatal resuscitation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003314.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mosarrat J Qureshi, Manoj Kumar

Abstract

Providing effective positive pressure ventilation is considered to be the single most important component of successful neonatal resuscitation. Ventilation is frequently initiated manually with bag and face mask (BMV) followed by endotracheal intubation if respiratory depression continues. These techniques may be difficult to perform successfully resulting in prolonged resuscitation or neonatal asphyxia. The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) may achieve initial ventilation and successful resuscitation faster than a bag-mask device or endotracheal intubation. Among newborns requiring positive pressure ventilation for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, is LMA more effective than BMV or endotracheal intubation for successful resuscitation? When BMV is either insufficient or ineffective, is effective positive pressure ventilation and successful resuscitation achieved faster with the LMA compared to endotracheal intubation? We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 15 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 15 February 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 15 February 2017). We also searched clinical trials registers, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared LMA for neonatal resuscitation with either BMV or endotracheal intubation and reported on any outcomes related to neonatal resuscitation specified in this review. Two review authors independently evaluated studies for risk of bias assessments, and extracted data using Cochrane Neonatal criteria. Categorical treatment effects were described as relative risks and continuous treatment effects were described as the mean difference, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of estimates. We included seven trials that involved a total of 794 infants. Five studies compared LMA with BMV and three studies compared LMA with endotracheal intubation. We added six new studies for this update (754 infants).LMA was associated with less need for endotracheal intubation than BMV (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47 and typical risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06; 5 studies, 661 infants; moderate-quality evidence) and shorter ventilation time (mean difference (MD) -18.90 seconds, 95% CI -24.35 to -13.44; 4 studies, 610 infants). Babies resuscitated with LMA were less likely to require admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (typical RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.90 and typical RD -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04; 2 studies,191 infants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in deaths or hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) events.Compared to endotracheal intubation, there were no clinically significant differences in insertion time or failure to correctly insert the device (typical RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.42; 3 studies, 158 infants; very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in deaths or HIE events. LMA can achieve effective ventilation during neonatal resuscitation in a time frame consistent with current neonatal resuscitation guidelines. Compared to BMV, LMA is more effective in terms of shorter resuscitation and ventilation times, and less need for endotracheal intubation (low- to moderate-quality evidence). However, in trials comparing LMA with BMV, over 80% of infants in both trial arms responded to the allocated intervention. In studies that allowed LMA rescue of infants failing with BMV, it was possible to avoid intubation in the majority. It is important that the clinical community resorts to the use of LMA more proactively to provide effective ventilation when newborn is not responding to BMV before attempting intubation or initiating chest compressions.LMA was found to offer comparable efficacy to endotracheal intubation (very low- to low-quality evidence). It therefore offers an alternate airway device when attempts at inserting endotracheal intubation are unsuccessful during resuscitation.Most studies enrolled infants with birth weight over 1500 g or 34 or more weeks' gestation. As such, there is lack of evidence to support LMA use in more premature infants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 214 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 16%
Student > Master 29 13%
Researcher 28 13%
Other 18 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 54 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 18%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 64 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 09 June 2021.
All research outputs
#708,275
of 18,929,457 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,679
of 11,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,675
of 290,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 203 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 96th 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 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 290,241 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 203 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 73% of its contemporaries.