| 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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 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 | 261 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 15% |
| Researcher | 33 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 56 | 21% |
| Unknown | 73 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 121 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 26 | 10% |
| Unknown | 77 | 29% |
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
#1,906,538
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,240
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,188
of 158,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 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 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 158,269 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 188 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 71% of its contemporaries.