| Title |
Methylxanthine treatment for apnoea in preterm infants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd000140.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J Henderson-Smart, Antonio G De Paoli |
| Abstract |
Recurrent apnoea is common in preterm infants, particularly at very early gestational ages. These episodes of ineffective breathing can lead to hypoxaemia and bradycardia that may be severe enough to require the use of positive pressure ventilation. Methylxanthines (such as caffeine, theophylline or aminophylline) have been used to stimulate breathing and reduce apnoea and its consequences. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 219 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 14% |
| Researcher | 30 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 57 | 25% |
| Unknown | 45 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 104 | 46% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 21 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 24 | 11% |
| Unknown | 54 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,930,911
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,261
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,133
of 180,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 180,240 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.