↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intravenous dexamethasone for extubation of newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous dexamethasone for extubation of newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter G Davis, David J Henderson-Smart

Abstract

Endotracheal tubes are foreign bodies that may injure the upper airway causing laryngeal edema. This in turn may result in failure of extubation in preterm infants. Corticosteroids have been used prophylactically to reduce upper airway obstruction and facilitate extubation. In newborn infants having their endotracheal tube removed following a period of intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), what are the effects of intravenous corticosteroids on the incidence of endotracheal reintubation, stridor, atelectasis and adverse side effects? Searches were made of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (dexamethasone and extub*), Medline (MeSH search terms "dexamethasone", "extubat*" and "exp infant, newborn"), previous reviews including cross references, abstracts of conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching mainly in the English language. Trials were included which used random or quasi-random patient allocation, and which compared intravenous steroids given immediately prior to a planned extubation with placebo. Data were extracted independently by the two authors and analysed in Revman for all trials. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed to examine differences in response between infants at high risk for upper airway edema and those receiving routine prophylaxis prior to extubation. Administration of dexamethasone prior to extubation significantly reduced the need for reintubation of the trachea. This result applies to both the high risk group and to the total population of infants enrolled. However, the incidence of extubation failure was zero in the trial that attempted to exclude infants at high risk of airway edema. The side effects of higher blood sugar levels and glycosuria were found in the 2 trials where these were sought. Implications for practice Dexamethasone reduces the need for endotracheal reintubation of neonates after a period of IPPV. In view of the lack of effect in low risk infants and the documented and potential side effects, it appears reasonable to restrict its use to infants at increased risk for airway edema and obstruction, such as those who have received repeated or prolonged intubations. Implications for research Issues of dosage and applicability to the extremely low birthweight population could be addressed in future trials. Longer term outcomes such as chronic lung disease, duration of assisted ventilation and length of hospital stay should also be examined.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Other 14 13%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 30 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 December 2020.
All research outputs
#3,814,345
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,332
of 12,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,873
of 44,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 44,019 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 86% 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 65% of its contemporaries.