↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic intravenous calcium therapy for exchange blood transfusion in the newborn

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Prophylactic intravenous calcium therapy for exchange blood transfusion in the newborn
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011048.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tinuade A Ogunlesi, Foluso EA Lesi, Olabisi Oduwole

Abstract

Exchange blood transfusion (EBT) is a form of whole blood transfusion in which the total blood volume is replaced within a few hours. In perinatal and neonatal medicine, EBT is most often used in the management of severe anaemia or severe hyperbilirubinaemia in the first week of life. Hypocalcaemia, one of the common morbidities associated with EBT, is thought to arise from the chelating effects of the citrate commonly used as an anticoagulant in the donor's blood. This disorder manifests with muscular and nervous irritability and cardiac arrhythmias. To determine whether the use of prophylactic calcium reduces the risk of hypocalcaemia-related morbidities and death among newborn infants receiving EBT. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 June 2016), Embase (1980 to 29 June 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 29 June 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. All randomised and quasi-randomised trials of prophylactic intravenous calcium in EBT for newborns. Two review authors independently assessed and extracted data on methods, participants, interventions, and outcomes (mean total and ionised serum calcium before and after EBT and the presence of adverse events such as hypoglycaemia, apnoea, cardiac arrest, and death immediately after EBT). We reported results as means difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) and risk differences (RD) and 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes. We assessed quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and the GRADE system. We found only one quasi-randomised trial with 30 participants that met our inclusion criteria. In the small trial, total and ionised serum calcium levels were measured immediately before and immediately after EBT. All the participants were included in the final analysis and all the important outcomes were reported. Primary outcomesThere was one death in each group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.55; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.18; participants = 30; studies = 1). The study did not report the presence of cardiac arrhythmias within one week of EBT and the number of infants with serum calcium levels (total less than 8 mg/dL (2 mmol/L) or ionised less than 4.4 mg/dL (1.1 mmol/L)).Pair-wise comparison of EBT with intravenous 10% calcium gluconate versus EBT without intravenous calcium (change from baseline) showed mean total serum calcium was raised in the intervention group compared to the control group (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.11; participants = 30; studies = 1). Very low-quality evidence also indicated an increase in the levels of mean ionised serum calcium in the intervention group compared to the control group (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.11; participants = 30; studies = 1). Secondary outcomesAdverse reactions to intravenous calcium therapy included cardiac arrest in one neonate in the intervention arm (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.26; RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.23; participants = 30; studies = 1). There was apnoea and hypoglycaemia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.55; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.18; participants = 30; studies = 1) in the two neonates who died. Data were not available for other major secondary outcomes such as the number of infants with reduced serum magnesium, reduced parathormone, increased calcitonin, presence of seizures, carpopedal spasm, jitteriness and prolonged QTc interval on electrocardiography within one week of EBT. Very low-quality data from one quasi-randomised controlled trial suggested that the mean serum total and ionised calcium increased in the study group but decreased in the control group immediately after EBT. However, the mean values of total and ionised calcium in both arms of studies remained within international reference ranges. Unfortunately, data were not available to assess the trend of total and ionised serum calcium to the end of the first week after EBT. Therefore, due to the very low quality of evidence available, it is difficult to support or reject the continual use of prophylactic intravenous calcium in newborn infants receiving EBT. Researchers are encouraged to conduct more robustly designed trials with larger numbers of participants, and particularly, addressing the pattern of differences based on gestational age of participants, type of anticoagulant used, and the volume of blood used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 11 9%
Other 5 4%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 45 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 14%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 52 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,285,045
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,723
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,391
of 334,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 334,366 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 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.