↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Sealing procedures for preterm prelabour rupture of membranes

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

5 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


12 Dimensions

Readers on

243 Mendeley
Sealing procedures for preterm prelabour rupture of membranes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010218.pub2
Pubmed ID

Adele E Crowley, Rosalie M Grivell, Jodie M Dodd


Preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) complicates approximately 2% of pregnancies and can be either spontaneous or iatrogenic in nature. Complications of PPROM include prematurity, chorioamnionitis, neonatal sepsis, limb position defects, respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary hypoplasia chronic lung disease, periventricular leukomalacia and intraventricular haemorrhage.A number of different sealing techniques have been employed which aim to restore a physical barrier against infection and encourage the re-accumulation of amniotic fluid. Routine use of sealants is currently not recommended due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support the safety and effectiveness of such interventions. To assess the effects of sealing techniques following PPROM against each other, or versus standard care (including no sealant), on maternal and neonatal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different techniques for sealing preterm prelabour ruptured membranes. Cluster-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We planned to include abstracts when sufficient information was provided. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We included two studies (involving 141 women - with data from 124 women). We considered both studies as being at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible because the included studies examined different interventions (both in comparison with standard care) and reported on few, but different, outcomes. One study compared cervical adapter (mechanical sealing), and the other study examined an immunological membrane sealant. Neither of the included studies reported on this review's primary outcome of interest - perinatal mortality. Similarly, data were not reported for the majority of this review's secondary infant and maternal outcomes. Cervical adapter (mechanical sealing) versus standard care (one study, data from 35 participants)No data were reported for this review's primary outcome - perinatal mortality. Data were reported for few of this review's infant or maternal secondary outcomes.There was no clear difference between the mechanical sealing group and the standard care control in relation to the incidence of neonatal sepsis (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 5.09 (very low-quality evidence)) or chorioamnionitis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.28 to 5.09 (very low-quality evidence)). Oral immunological membrane sealant versus standard care (one study, data from 94 participants)No data were available for perinatal mortality (this review's primary outcome) or for the majority of this review's infant and maternal secondary outcomes. Compared to standard care, the immunological membrane sealant was associated with a reduction in preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.68 (very low-quality evidence)) and a reduction in neonatal death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.75 (very low-quality evidence)). However, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of neonatal sepsis (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46 (very low-quality evidence)) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46 (very low-quality evidence)). There is insufficient evidence to evaluate sealing procedures for PPROM. There were no data relating to this review's primary outcome (perinatal mortality) and the majority of our infant and maternal secondary outcomes were not reported in the two included studies.There was limited evidence to suggest that an immunological membrane sealant was associated with a reduction in preterm birth at less than 37 weeks and neonatal death, but these results should be interpreted with caution as this is based on one small study, with a high risk of bias, and the intervention has not been tested in other studies.Although midtrimester PPROM is not a rare occurrence, there are only a small amount of published data addressing the benefits and risks of sealing procedures. Most of these studies are retrospective and cohort based and could therefore not be included in our data-analysis.This review highlights the paucity of prospective randomised trials in this area. Current evidence provides limited information both on effectiveness and safety for the interventions described. Given the paucity of high-quality data, we recommend that future research efforts focus on the conduct of randomised trials assessing the effect of promising interventions that have been only evaluated to date in cohort studies (e.g. amniopatch). Future trials should address outcomes including perinatal mortality, preterm birth, neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis and developmental delay. They should also evaluate maternal outcomes including sepsis, mode of delivery, length of hospital stay and emotional well-being.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 240 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 17%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 53 22%
Unknown 62 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 14%
Psychology 15 6%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 72 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 258,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 258,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.