↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fluid restriction for treatment of preterm infants with chronic lung disease

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

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
Fluid restriction for treatment of preterm infants with chronic lung disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005389.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith J Barrington, Etienne Fortin-Pellerin, Thomas Pennaforte

Abstract

Fluid restriction is often recommended as part of the management of infants with early or established bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). To determine whether fluid restriction as part of the therapeutic intervention for early or established BPD improves clinical outcomes. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 16 February 2016), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 16 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 16 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 16 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Prospective randomised clinical trials comparing two distinct fluid administration volumes in preterm infants with early or established BPD. We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. For the included trial, we extracted data and assessed the risk of bias, and used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. The outcomes considered in this review are effects on mortality or requirement for oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (primary outcome measure), the duration of supplemental oxygen therapy, proportion of infants discharged from hospital on oxygen, duration of assisted ventilation, duration of hospitalisation, weight gain, feeding tolerance, apnoea, necrotizing enterocolitis, renal dysfunction or nephrocalcinosis, lung mechanics, and use of diuretic therapy (secondary outcome measures). One trial was found, including 60 preterm infants at 28 days of age with persistent oxygen requirements. Infants were randomised to either 180 mL/kg/day of standard formula or 145 mL/kg/day of concentrated formula. This single study did not provide data regarding our primary outcome. No effects of the intervention were found on any of our secondary outcomes. The quality of the evidence from this study was graded low. There is no evidence to support the practice of fluid restriction in infants with early or established BPD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 15 9%
Other 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 61 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 5 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 69 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,852,539
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,530
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,109
of 425,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#137
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 54% 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 425,032 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 227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.