↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral dextrose gel for the treatment of hypoglycaemia in newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% 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 (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 Mendeley
Title
Oral dextrose gel for the treatment of hypoglycaemia in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011027.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip J Weston, Deborah L Harris, Malcolm Battin, Julie Brown, Joanne E Hegarty, Jane E Harding

Abstract

Neonatal hypoglycaemia, a common condition, can be associated with brain injury. It is frequently managed by providing infants with an alternative source of glucose, given enterally with formula or intravenously with dextrose solution. This often requires that mother and baby are cared for in separate environments and may inhibit breast feeding. Dextrose gel is simple and inexpensive and can be administered directly to the buccal mucosa for rapid correction of hypoglycaemia, in association with continued breast feeding and maternal care. To assess the effectiveness of dextrose gel in correcting hypoglycaemia and in reducing long-term neurodevelopmental impairment. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science from inception of the database to February 2016. We also searched international clinical trials networks and handsearched proceedings of specific scientific meetings. Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing dextrose gel versus placebo, no treatment or other therapies for treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and did not assess publications for which they themselves were study authors. We included two trials involving 312 infants. No data were available for correction of hypoglycaemia for each hypoglycaemic event. We found no evidence of a difference between dextrose gel and placebo gel for major neurosensory disability at two-year follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 6.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 51.03; one trial, n = 184; quality of evidence very low). Dextrose gel compared with placebo gel or no gel did not alter the need for intravenous treatment for hypoglycaemia (typical RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32; two trials, 312 infants; quality of evidence very low). Infants treated with dextrose gel were less likely to be separated from their mothers for treatment of hypoglycaemia (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93; one trial, 237 infants; quality of evidence moderate) and were more likely to be exclusively breast fed after discharge (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18; one trial, 237 infants; quality of evidence moderate). Estimated rise in blood glucose concentration following dextrose gel was 0.4 mmol/L (95% CI -0.14 to 0.94; one trial, 75 infants). Investigators in one trial reported no adverse outcomes (n = 237 infants). Treatment of infants with neonatal hypoglycaemia with 40% dextrose gel reduces the incidence of mother-infant separation for treatment and increases the likelihood of full breast feeding after discharge compared with placebo gel. No evidence suggests occurrence of adverse effects during the neonatal period or at two years' corrected age. Oral dextrose gel should be considered first-line treatment for infants with neonatal hypoglycaemia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 276 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 16%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Other 19 7%
Other 51 18%
Unknown 91 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 4 1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 103 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 25 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,128,525
of 25,391,066 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,332
of 12,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,243
of 310,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 310,848 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 247 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.