↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Xenon as an adjuvant to therapeutic hypothermia in near‐term and term newborns with hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
Title
Xenon as an adjuvant to therapeutic hypothermia in near‐term and term newborns with hypoxic‐ischaemic encephalopathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012753.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph M Rüegger, Peter G Davis, Jeanie L Cheong

Abstract

Hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) is a serious birth complication affecting term and late preterm newborns. Although therapeutic hypothermia (cooling) has been shown to be an effective therapy for neonatal HIE, many cooled infants have poor long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. In animal models of neonatal encephalopathy, inhaled xenon combined with cooling has been shown to offer better neuroprotection than cooling alone. To determine the effects of xenon as an adjuvant to therapeutic hypothermia on mortality and neurodevelopmental morbidity, and to ascertain clinically important side effects of xenon plus therapeutic hypothermia in newborn infants with HIE. To assess early predictors of adverse outcomes and potential side effects of xenon. We used the standard strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1966), Embase (from 1966), and PubMed (from 1966) for randomised controlled and quasi-randomised trials. We also searched conference proceedings and the reference lists of cited articles. We conducted our most recent search in August 2017. We included all trials allocating term or late preterm encephalopathic newborns to cooling plus xenon or cooling alone, irrespective of timing (starting age and duration) and concentrations used for xenon administration. Two review authors independently assessed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. A single randomised controlled trial enrolling 92 participants was eligible for this review. Researchers have not reported long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, including the primary outcome of this review - death or long-term major neurodevelopmental disability in infancy (18 months to three years of age). Cooling plus xenon was not associated with reduced mortality at latest follow-up, based upon low quality evidence. Investigators noted no substantial differences between groups for other secondary outcomes of this review, such as biomarkers of brain damage assessed with magnetic resonance imaging and occurrence of seizures during primary hospitalisation. Available data do not show an increased adverse event rate in the cooling plus xenon group compared with the cooling alone group. Current evidence from one small randomised controlled pilot trial is inadequate to show whether cooling plus xenon is safe or effective in near-term and term newborns with HIE. Further trials reporting long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 190 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Researcher 13 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 66 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Unspecified 10 5%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 72 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 21 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,472,291
of 25,372,398 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,164
of 12,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,421
of 322,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,372,398 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 322,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 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 65% of its contemporaries.