| Title |
Specialist teams for neonatal transport to neonatal intensive care units for prevention of morbidity and mortality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007485.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alvin SM Chang, Andrew Berry, Lisa J Jones, Subramaniam Sivasangari |
| Abstract |
Maternal antenatal transfers provide better neonatal outcomes. However, there will inevitably be some infants who require acute transport to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Because of this, many institutions develop services to provide neonatal transport by specially trained health personnel. However, few studies report on relevant clinical outcomes in infants requiring transport to NICU. To determine the effects of specialist transport teams compared with non-specialist transport teams on the risk of neonatal mortality and morbidity among high-risk newborn infants requiring transport to neonatal intensive care. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 July 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 31 July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to 31 July 2015), conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Study design: randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials. neonates requiring transport to a neonatal intensive care unit. transport by a specialist team compared to a non-specialist team. any of the following outcomes - death; adverse events during transport leading to respiratory compromise; and condition on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the information provided in the studies and by personal communication with the author. Data on relevant outcomes were extracted and the effect size estimated and reported as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Data from cluster randomised trials were not combined for analysis. One trial met the inclusion criteria of this review but was considered ineligible owing to serious bias in the reporting of the results. There is no reliable evidence from randomised trials to support or refute the effects of specialist neonatal transport teams for neonatal retrieval on infant morbidity and mortality. Cluster randomised trial study designs may be best suited to provide us with answers on effectiveness and clinical outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 188 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 17% |
| Researcher | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 31 | 16% |
| Unknown | 52 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 61 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,811,404
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,625
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,196
of 295,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#232
of 292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 295,481 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 292 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.