↓ Skip to main content

Management of Shock in Neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Indian Journal of Pediatrics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Management of Shock in Neonates
Published in
Indian Journal of Pediatrics, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12098-015-1758-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Vishnu Bhat, Nishad Plakkal

Abstract

Shock is characterized by inadequate oxygen delivery to the tissues, and is more frequent in very low birth weight infants, especially in the first few days of life. Shock is an independent predictor of mortality, and the survivors are at a higher risk of neurologic impairment. Understanding the pathophysiology helps to recognize and classify shock in the early compensated phase and initiate appropriate treatment. Hypovolemia is rarely the primary cause of shock in neonates. Myocardial dysfunction is especially common in extremely preterm infants, and in term infants with perinatal asphyxia. Blood pressure measurements are easy, but correlate poorly with cerebral and systemic blood flows. Point-of-care cardiac ultrasound can help in individualized assessment of problems, selecting appropriate therapy and monitoring response, but may not always be available, and long-term benefits need to be demonstrated. The use of near-infrared spectroscopy to guide treatment of neonatal shock is currently experimental. In the absence of hypovolemia, excessive administration of fluid boluses is inappropriate therapy. Dobutamine and dopamine are the most common initial inotropes used in neonatal shock. Dobutamine has been shown to improve systemic blood flow, especially in very low birth weight infants, but dopamine is better at improving blood pressure in hypotensive infants. Newer inodilators including milrinone and levosimendan may be useful in selected settings. Data on long-term survival and neurologic outcomes following different management strategies are scarce and future research efforts should focus on this.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 8 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 29 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 35 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,760,015
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from Indian Journal of Pediatrics
#1,041
of 1,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,088
of 266,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Indian Journal of Pediatrics
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,525 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 266,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.