↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes of Two Trials of Oxygen-Saturation Targets in Preterm Infants

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
86 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Outcomes of Two Trials of Oxygen-Saturation Targets in Preterm Infants
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1514212
Pubmed ID
Authors

William Tarnow-Mordi, Ben Stenson, Adrienne Kirby, Edmund Juszczak, Mark Donoghoe, Sanjeev Deshpande, Colin Morley, Andrew King, Lex W Doyle, Brian W Fleck, Peter G Davis, Henry L Halliday, Wendy Hague, Pamela Cairns, Brian A Darlow, Alistair R Fielder, Val Gebski, Neil Marlow, Karen Simmer, Win Tin, Alpana Ghadge, Cathy Williams, Anthony Keech, Stephen P Wardle, Zsuzsoka Kecskes, Martin Kluckow, Glen Gole, Nicholas Evans, Girvan Malcolm, Melissa Luig, Ian Wright, Jacqueline Stack, Kenneth Tan, Margo Pritchard, Peter H Gray, Scott Morris, Bevan Headley, Peter Dargaville, R John Simes, Peter Brocklehurst

Abstract

Background The safest ranges of oxygen saturation in preterm infants have been the subject of debate. Methods In two trials, conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom, infants born before 28 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned to either a lower (85 to 89%) or a higher (91 to 95%) oxygen-saturation range. During enrollment, the oximeters were revised to correct a calibration-algorithm artifact. The primary outcome was death or disability at a corrected gestational age of 2 years; this outcome was evaluated among infants whose oxygen saturation was measured with any study oximeter in the Australian trial and those whose oxygen saturation was measured with a revised oximeter in the U.K. trial. Results After 1135 infants in Australia and 973 infants in the United Kingdom had been enrolled in the trial, an interim analysis showed increased mortality at a corrected gestational age of 36 weeks, and enrollment was stopped. Death or disability in the Australian trial (with all oximeters included) occurred in 247 of 549 infants (45.0%) in the lower-target group versus 217 of 545 infants (39.8%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.27; P=0.10); death or disability in the U.K. trial (with only revised oximeters included) occurred in 185 of 366 infants (50.5%) in the lower-target group versus 164 of 357 infants (45.9%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.24; P=0.15). In post hoc combined, unadjusted analyses that included all oximeters, death or disability occurred in 492 of 1022 infants (48.1%) in the lower-target group versus 437 of 1013 infants (43.1%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23; P=0.02), and death occurred in 222 of 1045 infants (21.2%) in the lower-target group versus 185 of 1045 infants (17.7%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.43; P=0.04). In the group in which revised oximeters were used, death or disability occurred in 287 of 580 infants (49.5%) in the lower-target group versus 248 of 563 infants (44.0%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.27; P=0.07), and death occurred in 144 of 587 infants (24.5%) versus 99 of 586 infants (16.9%) (relative risk, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.82; P=0.001). Conclusions Use of an oxygen-saturation target range of 85 to 89% versus 91 to 95% resulted in nonsignificantly higher rates of death or disability at 2 years in each trial but in significantly increased risks of this combined outcome and of death alone in post hoc combined analyses. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; BOOST-II Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN00842661 , and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12605000055606 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 2%
United States 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 199 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 19%
Other 38 18%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Postgraduate 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Other 48 23%
Unknown 31 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Arts and Humanities 3 1%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 47 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. 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 20 January 2023.
All research outputs
#370,941
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#5,581
of 32,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,801
of 412,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#119
of 359 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 412,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 359 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 66% of its contemporaries.