↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic lock for the prevention of catheter-related infection in neonates

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
15 tweeters
3 Facebook pages


43 Dimensions

Readers on

242 Mendeley
Antibiotic lock for the prevention of catheter-related infection in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010336.pub2
Pubmed ID

Jacqueline E Taylor, Kenneth Tan, Nai Ming Lai, Susan J McDonald


Use of a central venous catheter (CVC) in neonates is associated with an increase in nosocomial infection. Numerous strategies exist to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI); however, CRBSI continues to be a major problem. Antibiotic locking catheters is a new and promising treatment that potentially prevents this severe condition. To assess the effectiveness of antibiotic lock versus no antibiotic lock or alternative antibiotic lock in the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants of any gestational age during their initial stay in the neonatal unit and to study any relevant adverse effects from antibiotic lock therapy. Methods followed those of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5); MEDLINE (via PubMed); EMBASE (hosted by EBCHOST); CINAHL; abstracts from Pediatric Academic Societies, European Society for Paediatric Research and trials registries; and references cited in our short listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to April 2015. We considered all trials utilising random or quasi-random participant allocation. Participants included all newborn infants of any postmenstrual age who required any type of CVC. We compared an antibiotic lock technique with no antibiotic lock or placebo, such as heparinised saline, for any duration of time. We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our dichotomous results using risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed for heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We included three trials (271 infants) in this review. Two of the three included studies had an overall low risk of bias and the remaining study had high risk of selection and performance biases. The use of an antibiotic lock decreased the incidence of confirmed catheter-related infection (typical RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.40; 3 studies, 271 infants) (high-quality evidence). The typical absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 18.5% and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5. The effect of use of an antibiotic lock on suspected catheter infection was imprecise (typical RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.92) (moderate quality evidence). Confirmed and suspect infection rates combined were lower in the antibiotic lock group (absolute rates, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.49; rate per 1000 catheter days, RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.40). The ARR was 20.5% and the NNTB was 5. None of the studies report resistance to the antibiotic used during the lock treatment. There was no significant difference in the detectable serum levels of antibiotic. When the data from two studies were pooled, there were significantly fewer episodes of hypoglycaemia in the treatment arm (typical RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.92). There was no statistically significant difference for mortality due to sepsis between the control and intervention group. Based on a small number of trials and neonates, antibiotic lock solution appeared to be effective in preventing CRBSI in the neonatal population. However, as each included study used a different antibiotics and antibiotic resistance could not be reliably assessed, the evidence to-date is insufficient to determine the effects of antibiotic lock on infections in neonates.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters 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 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 241 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Other 15 6%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 75 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 80 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
of 23,321,213 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 268,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,321,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 268,248 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 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 67% of its contemporaries.