↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants

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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001457.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thirimon Moe‐Byrne, Jennifer VE Brown, William McGuire

Abstract

Glutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants. To determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care (to December 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital. We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. We identified 12 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2877 preterm infants participated. Six trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not find an effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality (typical relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.17; risk difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02) or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Three trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 18 to 24 months and beyond did not find any effects. The available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm infants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 260 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 36 14%
Researcher 30 11%
Unspecified 17 6%
Other 14 5%
Other 50 19%
Unknown 78 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 13%
Unspecified 15 6%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 87 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 03 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,281,846
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,714
of 11,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,630
of 313,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,482 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 done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 313,512 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 237 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 66% of its contemporaries.