↓ 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
320 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
281 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).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 281 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 276 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 15%
Researcher 34 12%
Student > Master 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 57 20%
Unknown 85 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 89 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,124,179
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,435
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,067
of 168,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 168,992 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 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 70% of its contemporaries.