↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in children and adults

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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
144 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
335 Mendeley
Title
Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in children and adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002787.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabienne Gebistorf, Oliver Karam, Jørn Wetterslev, Arash Afshari

Abstract

Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and mostly acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are critical conditions. AHRF results from several systemic conditions and is associated with high mortality and morbidity in individuals of all ages. Inhaled nitric oxide (INO) has been used to improve oxygenation, but its role remains controversial. This Cochrane review was originally published in 2003, and has been updated in 2010 and 2016. The primary objective was to examine the effects of administration of inhaled nitric oxide on mortality in adults and children with ARDS. Secondary objectives were to examine secondary outcomes such as pulmonary bleeding events, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, etc. We conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examined the role of bias and applied trial sequential analyses (TSAs) to examine the level of evidence. In this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 11); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, to 18 November 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP, to 18 November 2015), CAB, BIOSIS and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We handsearched the reference lists of the newest reviews and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception until 18 November 2015. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We performed several subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of INO in adults and children and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We presented pooled estimates of the effects of interventions as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. Our primary objective was to assess effects of INO on mortality. We found no statistically significant effects of INO on longest follow-up mortality: 250/654 deaths (38.2%) in the INO group compared with 221/589 deaths (37.5%) in the control group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.19; I² statistic = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We found no statistically significant effects of INO on mortality at 28 days: 202/587 deaths (34.4%) in the INO group compared with 166/518 deaths (32.0%) in the control group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.27; I² statistic = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). In children, there was no statistically significant effects of INO on mortality: 25/89 deaths (28.1%) in the INO group compared with 34/96 deaths (35.4%) in the control group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.18; I² statistic = 22%; moderate quality of evidence).Our secondary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of INO. For partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), we found significant improvement at 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 15.91, 95% CI 8.25 to 23.56; I² statistic = 25%; 11 trials, 614 participants; moderate quality of evidence). For the oxygenation index, we noted significant improvement at 24 hours (MD -2.31, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.89; I² statistic = 0%; five trials, 368 participants; moderate quality of evidence). For ventilator-free days, the difference was not statistically significant (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.82 to 0.69; I² statistic = 0%; five trials, 804 participants; high quality of evidence). There was a statistically significant increase in renal failure in the INO groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.16; I² statistic = 0%; high quality of evidence). Evidence is insufficient to support INO in any category of critically ill patients with AHRF. Inhaled nitric oxide results in a transient improvement in oxygenation but does not reduce mortality and may be harmful, as it seems to increase renal impairment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 335 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 329 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 16%
Student > Master 46 14%
Other 33 10%
Student > Bachelor 32 10%
Student > Postgraduate 28 8%
Other 73 22%
Unknown 69 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 167 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 28 8%
Unknown 80 24%

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 08 October 2020.
All research outputs
#728,280
of 17,975,824 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,803
of 11,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,056
of 269,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,975,824 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 11,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 269,627 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.