| Title |
Challenges Associated with Route of Administration in Neonatal Drug Delivery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40262-015-0313-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew W. Linakis, Jessica K. Roberts, Anita C. Lala, Michael G. Spigarelli, Natalie J. Medlicott, David M. Reith, Robert M. Ward, Catherine M. T. Sherwin |
| Abstract |
The administration of drugs to neonates poses significant challenges. The aim of this review was to provide insight into some of these challenges and resolutions that may be encountered with several of the most commonly used routes of administration and dosage forms in neonatal care, including oral, parenteral, transdermal, intrapulmonary, and rectal. Important considerations include fluctuations in stomach pH hours to years after birth, the logistics of setting up an intravenous infusion, the need for reduced particle size for aerosol delivery to the developing neonatal lung, and variation in perirectal venous drainage. Additionally, some of the recently developed technologies for use in neonatal care are described. While the understanding of neonatal drug delivery has advanced over the past several decades, there is still a deficiency of technologies and formulations developed specifically for this population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 43% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 34 | 42% |
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 30 January 2024.
All research outputs
#5,148,798
of 25,401,784 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#321
of 1,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,132
of 275,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#7
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,784 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 275,513 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 73% of its contemporaries.