↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in the neonatal intensive care unit: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in the neonatal intensive care unit: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00431-014-2278-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin Tan, Fan Zhang, Xian Zhang, Ya-Ling Huang, Yu-Shuang Gao, Xiao Liu, Ying-Li Li, Jing-Fu Qiu

Abstract

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common and serious problem among mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU), especially for the newborn. However, limited literatures have been reviewed to synthesize the finding of previous papers to investigate the risk factors for VAP although it has been a serious complication of mechanical ventilation (MV) with a high morbidity and mortality in the newborn. We performed this meta-analysis to extend previous knowledge for developing VAP prevention strategies by identifying the potential risk factors related to VAP in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The relevant literatures published up to July 2013 were searched in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Web of Science. Three reviewers screened those literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria independently. A total of eight studies including 370 cases and 1,071 controls were identified. Ten risk factors were found to be related to neonatal VAP which were listed as follows in order by odds ratios (ORs): length of stay in NICU (OR 23.45), reintubation (OR 9.18), enteral feeding (OR 5.59), mechanical ventilation (OR 4.04), transfusion (OR 3.32), low birth weight (OR 3.16), premature infants (OR 2.66), parenteral nutrition (OR 2.30), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (OR 2.21), and tracheal intubation (OR 1.12).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Postgraduate 14 12%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 8 7%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 33 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 38 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 February 2014.
All research outputs
#13,328,150
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#2,350
of 3,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,192
of 313,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#12
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 71% of its contemporaries.