↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for preventing preterm delivery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
Title
Antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for preventing preterm delivery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006178.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sangkomkamhang, Ussanee S, Lumbiganon, Pisake, Prasertcharoensuk, Witoon, Laopaiboon, Malinee

Abstract

Genital tract infection is associated with preterm birth (before 37 weeks' gestation). Screening for infections during pregnancy may therefore reduce the numbers of babies being born prematurely. However, screening for infections may have some adverse effects, such as increased antibiotic drug resistance and increased cost of treatment. To assess the effectiveness of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for reducing preterm birth and subsequent morbidity. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7) and reference lists of retrieved reports. We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in any language that evaluated any described methods of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening compared with no screening. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. One study (4155 women at less than 20 weeks' gestation) met the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (2058 women) received infection screening and treatment for bacterial vaginosis, trichomonas vaginalis and candidiasis; the control group (2097 women) also received screening, but the results of the screening program were not revealed and women received routine antenatal care. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was significantly lower in the intervention group (3% versus 5% in the control group) with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.75; the evidence for this outcome was graded as of moderate quality). The incidence of preterm birth for infants with a weight equal to or below 2500 g (low birthweight) and infants with a weight equal to or below 1500 g (very low birthweight) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66 and RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75, respectively; both graded as moderate quality evidence). Based on a subset of costs for preterm births of < 1900 g, the authors reported that for each of those preterm births averted, EUR 60,262 would be saved. There is evidence from one trial that infection screening and treatment programs for pregnant women before 20 weeks' gestation reduce preterm birth and preterm low birthweight. Infection screening and treatment programs are associated with cost savings when used for the prevention of preterm birth. Future trials should evaluate the effects of different types of infection screening programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Unknown 244 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 17%
Student > Bachelor 32 13%
Researcher 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 59 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Psychology 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 62 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,215,016
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,780
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,516
of 353,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#209
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 353,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.