↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prophylactic versus selective use of surfactant in preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
247 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
Title
Prophylactic versus selective use of surfactant in preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000510.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Ximena Rojas-Reyes, Colin J Morley, Roger Soll

Abstract

Surfactant therapy is effective in improving the outcome of very preterm infants. Trials have studied a wide variety of surfactant preparations used either to prevent or treat respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). In animal models, prophylactic surfactant leads to more homogeneous distribution and less evidence of lung damage. However, administration requires intubation and treatment of infants who will not go on to develop RDS. This is of particular concern with the advent of improved approaches to providing continuous distending pressure, particularly in the form of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 220 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 16%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Master 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 47 21%
Unknown 54 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 8%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 58 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,057,227
of 14,579,754 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,063
of 11,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,193
of 122,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,579,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 122,249 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 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.