↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rescue high-frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for severe pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
Rescue high-frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for severe pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000437.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Ximena Rojas-Reyes, Paola A Orrego-Rojas

Abstract

Chronic lung disease (CLD) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants despite increased use of antenatal steroids and surfactant therapy. Ventilator injury and oxygen toxicity are thought to be important factors in the pathogenesis of chronic pulmonary disease. Evidence from animal studies and from adult human studies indicates that high-frequency jet ventilation may reduce the severity of lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation. To compare use of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) versus conventional ventilation (CV) in preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction.Subgroup analyses include the following.• Trials with and without surfactant replacement therapy.• Trials with and without strategies to maintain lung volume.• Trials with infants of different gestational ages and birth weights (specific subgroups to include < 28 weeks' gestation and < 1000 grams).• Trials with and without adequate humidification of inspired gases. The original search included MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2005, Issue 3) and EMBASE (1988 to August 2005). We also obtained information from experts in the field and checked cross-references. We updated the electronic search in June 2013 and again in June 2015. We included in this systematic review randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of rescue high-frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants born at less than 35 weeks' gestation or with birth weight less than 2000 grams in respiratory distress. We used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including independent trial assessment and data extraction. We analysed data using risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs). We included only one trial in the review. Keszler 1991 randomly assigned 166 preterm infants; reported data on 144 infants; and permitted cross-over to the alternate treatment if initial treatment failed. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (including survival after cross-over) between the two groups (RR 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.72). In a secondary analysis of infants up to the time of cross-over, rescue treatment with HFJV was associated with lower mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). Researchers reported no significant differences in the incidence of CLD among survivors at 28 days of age, nor in the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. Study authors reported no significant differences in overall mortality between rescue high-frequency jet ventilation and conventional ventilation and presented highly imprecise results for important adverse effects such as intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis.The overall quality of evidence is affected by limitations in trial design and by imprecision due to the small number of infants in the included study. Existing evidence does not support the use of high-frequency jet ventilation as rescue therapy in preterm infants.Studies that target populations at greatest risk and that have sufficient power to assess important outcomes are needed. These trials should incorporate long-term pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 35 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#11,234,141
of 17,356,510 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,035
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,970
of 291,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#242
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,356,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 291,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.