↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prophylactic nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preventing morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (72nd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
246 Mendeley
Title
Prophylactic nasal continuous positive airway pressure for preventing morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001243.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prema Subramaniam, Jacqueline J Ho, Peter G Davis

Abstract

Cohort studies have suggested that nasal continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) starting in the immediate postnatal period before the onset of respiratory disease (prophylactic CPAP) may be beneficial in reducing the need for intubation and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) and in preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm or low birth weight infants. To determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP started soon after birth regardless of respiratory status in the very preterm or very low birth weight infant reduces the use of IPPV and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) without adverse effects. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 31 January 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 31 January 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 31 January 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. All trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation of very preterm infants (under 32 weeks' gestation) or less than 1500 grams at birth were eligible. We included trials if they compared prophylactic nasal CPAP started soon after birth regardless of the respiratory status of the infant with 'standard' methods of treatment such as IPPV, oxygen therapy or supportive treatment. We excluded studies where prophylactic CPAP was compared with CPAP along with other interventions. We used the standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent study selection, assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by two authors. Data were analysed using risk ratio (RR) and the meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. Seven trials recruiting 3123 babies were included in the meta-analysis. Four trials recruiting 765 babies compared CPAP with supportive care and three trials (2364 infants) compared CPAP with mechanical ventilation. Apart from a lack of blinding of the intervention all studies were of low risk of bias.In the comparison of CPAP with supportive care there was a reduction in failed treatment (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.98; typical risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants, very low quality evidence). There was no reduction in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or mortality.In trials comparing CPAP with assisted ventilation with or without surfactant, CPAP resulted in a small but clinically significant reduction in the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks, (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; 3 studies, 772 infants, moderate-quality evidence); and death or BPD (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 3 studies, 1042 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also a clinically important reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (typical RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; typical RD -0.49, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.39; 2 studies, 760 infants, moderate-quality evidence); and the use of surfactant in the CPAP group (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73; typical RD -0.41, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.28; 3 studies, 1744 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to evaluate prophylactic CPAP compared to oxygen therapy and other supportive care. However when compared to mechanical ventilation prophylactic nasal CPAP in very preterm infants reduces the need for mechanical ventilation and surfactant and also reduces the incidence of BPD and death or BPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 244 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 16%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Researcher 29 12%
Other 20 8%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 58 24%
Unknown 55 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 14%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 72 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 22 September 2020.
All research outputs
#829,203
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,158
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,424
of 269,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 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 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. 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 269,499 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 149 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 72% of its contemporaries.