↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring for the prevention of neonatal morbidity and mortality

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring for the prevention of neonatal morbidity and mortality
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011494.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Bruschettini, Olga Romantsik, Simona Zappettini, Luca Antonio Ramenghi, Maria Grazia Calevo

Abstract

Carbon dioxide (CO2) measurement is a fundamental evaluation in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), as both low and high values of CO2 might have detrimental effects on neonatal morbidity and mortality. Though measurement of CO2 in the arterial blood gas is the most accurate way to assess the amount of CO2, it requires blood sampling and it does not provide a continuous monitoring of CO2. To assess whether the use of continuous transcutaneous CO2 (tcCO2) monitoring in newborn infants reduces mortality and improves short and long term respiratory and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to November 1, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to November 1, 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to November 1, 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. Randomized, quasi-randomized and cluster randomized controlled trials comparing different strategies regarding tcCO2 monitoring in newborns. Three comparisons were considered, that is, continuous tcCO2 monitoring versus 1) any intermittent modalities to measure CO2; 2) other continuous CO2 monitoring; and 3) with or without intermittent CO2 monitoring. We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion. Our search strategy yielded 106 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. We did not find any completed studies for inclusion, nor ongoing trials. There was no evidence to recommend or refute the use of transcutaneous CO2 monitoring in neonates. Well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled studies are necessary to address efficacy and safety of transcutaneous CO2 monitoring in neonates.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Engineering 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 27 30%

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 29 March 2021.
All research outputs
#5,186,623
of 17,575,102 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,626
of 11,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,369
of 352,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#129
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,575,102 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 352,977 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.