↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral immunoglobulin for preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm and low birth weight neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Oral immunoglobulin for preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm and low birth weight neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001816.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jann P Foster, Rakesh Seth, Michael J Cole

Abstract

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is the most common emergency involving the gastrointestinal tract occurring in the neonatal period. There have been published reports that suggest that oral immunoglobulins (Ig)A and IgG produce an immunoprotective effect in the gastrointestinal mucosa. To determine the effect of oral immunoglobulin on the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and other complications in preterm or low birth weight (or both) neonates. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Group. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1), PubMed (1966 to January 2016), CINAHL (1982 to January 2016) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2016) and conference proceedings. All randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials where oral immunoglobulins were used as prophylaxis against NEC in preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or low birth weight (less than 2500 gram), or both, neonates. We performed data collection and analysis in accordance with the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. The search identified five studies on oral immunoglobulin for the prevention of NEC of which three met the inclusion criteria. In this review of the three eligible trials (including 2095 neonates), the oral administration of IgG or an IgG/IgA combination did not result in a significant reduction in the incidence of definite NEC (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.25; typical risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3 studies, 1840 infants), suspected NEC (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.46; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; 1 study, 1529 infants), need for surgery (typical RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.75; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 2 studies, 311 infants) or death from NEC (typical RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.59; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 3 studies, 1840 infants). Based on the available trials, the evidence does not support the administration of oral immunoglobulin for the prevention of NEC. There are no randomized controlled trials of oral IgA alone for the prevention of NEC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 148 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 10 7%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 45 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 51 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 09 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,445,021
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,303
of 12,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,265
of 300,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. 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 300,360 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 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 64% of its contemporaries.