↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Diuretics for transient tachypnoea of the newborn

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
Title
Diuretics for transient tachypnoea of the newborn
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003064.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manal Kassab, Wadah M Khriesat, Jasim Anabrees

Abstract

Transient tachypnoea of the newborn (TTN) results from delayed clearance of lung liquid and is a common cause of admission of full-term infants to neonatal intensive care units. The condition is particularly common after elective caesarean section. Conventional treatment involves appropriate oxygen administration and continuous positive airway pressure in some cases. Most infants receive antibiotic therapy. Hastening the clearance of lung liquid may shorten the duration of the symptoms and reduce complications. To determine whether diuretic administration reduces the duration of oxygen therapy and respiratory symptoms and shortens hospital stay in term infants presenting with transient tachypnoea of the newborn. An updated search was carried out in September 2015 of the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library issue 9, 2015), MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL via OVID. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of diuretics administration versus placebo or no treatment in infants of less than seven days of age, born at 37 or more weeks of gestation with the clinical picture of transient tachypnoea of the newborn. We extracted and analysed data according to the methods outlined in the latest Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors assessed trial quality in each potentially eligible manuscript and two review authors extracted data. Our previous systematic review included two trials enrolling a total of 100 infants with transient tachypnoea of the newborn (Wiswell 1985; Karabayir 2006). The updated search revealed no new trials. Wiswell 1985 randomised 50 infants to receive either oral furosemide (2 mg/kg body weight at time of diagnosis followed by a 1 mg/kg dose 12 hours later if the tachypnoea persisted) or placebo. Karabayir 2006 randomised 50 infants to receive either intravenous furosemide (2 mg/kg body weight) or an equal volume of normal saline placebo. Neither trial reported on the need for respiratory support. Neither trial demonstrated a statistically significant impact of furosemide on transient tachypnoea of the newborn regarding duration of symptoms or length of hospitalisation. Diuretics cannot be recommended as treatment for transient tachypnoea of the newborn and it should not be used unless additional data become available. This finding suggests that either furosemide is not effective in promoting resorption of lung fluid, or factors other than delayed resorption of this fluid contribute to the pathogenesis of transient tachypnoea of the newborn. The question remains as to whether furosemide given to the infant (or even to the mother before caesarean section) might shorten the duration of the illness. As elective caesarean section continues at a high level, these two interventions might be worthy of trials.

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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 196 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 12%
Student > Master 22 11%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Other 10 5%
Other 42 21%
Unknown 63 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 15%
Unspecified 10 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 65 33%

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 22 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,915
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,433
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,535
of 386,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#257
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 386,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.