| Title |
Role of prophylactic antibiotics in neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF)—a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Pediatrics, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00431-014-2385-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ankita Goel, Sushma Nangia, Arvind Saili, Akanksha Garg, Sunita Sharma, V. S. Randhawa |
| Abstract |
The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of administering prophylactic antibiotics on the development of neonatal sepsis in term neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). Two hundred and fifty eligible neonates were randomized to study group (Antibiotic group-receiving first-line antibiotics for 3 days) and control group (No Antibiotic group). Both groups were evaluated clinically and by laboratory parameters (sepsis screen and blood cultures) for development of sepsis. All neonates were monitored for respiratory, neurological, and other systemic complications and received supportive treatment according to standard management protocol of the unit. One hundred and twenty one neonates were randomized to 'Antibiotic' group and 129 to 'No Antibiotic' group. The overall incidence of suspect sepsis was 9.6 % in the study population with no significant difference between 'No Antibiotic' and 'Antibiotic' groups (10.8 vs. 8.2 %, p = 0.48, odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.73). Incidence of culture-proven sepsis was also not significantly different between the two groups (5.42 vs. 4.13 %, p = 0.63, OR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.23-2.43). The incidence of mortality, meconium aspiration syndrome, and other complications was comparable amongst the two groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,783,222
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#2,651
of 3,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,411
of 229,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#18
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,686 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 229,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 61% of its contemporaries.