↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin A supplementation to prevent mortality and short and long-term morbidity in very low birthweight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Vitamin A supplementation to prevent mortality and short and long-term morbidity in very low birthweight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000501.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darlow, Brian A, Graham, P J, Brian A Darlow, P J Graham, Darlow, B A

Abstract

Vitamin A is necessary for normal lung growth and the ongoing integrity of respiratory tract epithelial cells. Preterm infants have low vitamin A status at birth and this has been associated with increased risk of developing chronic lung disease. Several studies have been undertaken to assess whether vitamin A supplementation beyond that routinely given in multivitamin preparations can reduce the incidence of this outcome. To assess the benefit and risk of supplementation with vitamin A in very low birthweight infants. Searches were made of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE up to November 2006, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), and Science Citation Index. The reference lists of relevant trials, recent issues of paediatric and nutrition journals, abstracts and proceedings from relevant conferences in the English language were hand searched. Randomised controlled trials which compared the effects of supplemental vitamin A with standard vitamin A regimes in infants with birthweight </= 1500 g and reported clinical outcomes (death, chronic lung disease or bronchopulmonary dysplasia, long-term neurodevelopmental status) and/or vitamin A concentrations were considered for the review, as were trials which compared vitamin A dosing regimes and reported biochemical outcomes (retinol concentrations at 28 days). Data on mortality, requirement for supplemental oxygen at one month of age and at 36 weeks postmenstrual age, retinopathy of prematurity, nosocomial sepsis and follow-up at 18 to 22 months, as well as retinol concentrations at 28 days in trials comparing dosage regimes, were excerpted by both reviewers independently. Data analysis was conducted according to the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Eight eligible trials comparing vitamin A supplementation with standard regimes were identified, one having a much larger sample size than the others combined. The meta-analysis suggests supplementation with vitamin A is beneficial in reducing death or oxygen requirement at one month of age [typical RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.99), RD -0.05 ( 95% CI -0.10, -0.01), NNT 20 (10, 100) and oxygen requirement at 36 weeks postmenstrual age [typical RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.77, 0.98), RD -0.08 ( 95% CI -0.14, -0.01), NNT 13 (7, 100)], and trends towards reduction in oxygen requirement in survivors at one month of age [typical RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.86, 1.01) and death or oxygen requirement at 36 weeks postmenstrual age [typical RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82, 1.00)]. Meta-analysis of the three studies from which data on retinopathy of prematurity are available suggests a trend towards reduced incidence in vitamin A supplemented infants. Neurodevelopmental assessment of 85% of surviving infants participating in the largest trial showed no differences in outcome between supplementation and placebo groups at 18 to 22 months corrected age. Supplementing very low birthweight infants with vitamin A is associated with a reduction in death or oxygen requirement at one month of age and oxygen requirement among survivors at 36 weeks postmenstrual age, with this latter outcome being confined to infants with birthweight less than 1000 g. Whether clinicians decide to utilise repeat intramuscular doses of vitamin A to prevent chronic lung disease may depend upon the local incidence of this outcome and the value attached to achieving a modest reduction in this outcome, balanced against the lack of other proven benefits and the acceptability of treatment. Information on long-term neurodevelopmental status suggests no evidence of either benefit or harm from the intervention. The benefits, in terms of vitamin A status, safety and acceptability of delivering vitamin A in an intravenous emulsion compared with repeat intramuscular injections, should be assessed in a further trial.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 108 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 15 14%
Student > Master 14 13%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Chemistry 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 June 2012.
All research outputs
#12,203,278
of 34,089,221 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,468
of 14,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,206
of 124,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,089,221 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 124,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.