↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
87 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.
Article details
Title
Neonatal Early Warning Tools for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration in neonates cared for in the maternity setting: A retrospective case–control study
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.06.006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

All newborns are at risk of deterioration as a result of failing to make the transition to extra uterine life. Signs of deterioration can be subtle and easily missed. It has been postulated that the use of an Early Warning Tool may assist clinicians in recognising and responding to signs of deterioration earlier in neonates, thereby preventing a serious adverse event. To examine whether observations from a Standard Observation Tool, applied to three neonatal Early Warning Tools, would hypothetically trigger an escalation of care more frequently than actual escalation of care using the Standard Observation Tool. A retrospective case-control study. A maternity unit in a tertiary public hospital in Australia. Neonates born in 2013 of greater than or equal to 34(+0) weeks gestation, admitted directly to the maternity ward from their birthing location and whose subsequent deterioration required admission to the neonatal unit, were identified as cases from databases of the study hospital. Each case was matched with three controls, inborn during the same period and who did not experience deterioration and neonatal unit admission. Clinical and physiological data recorded on a Standard Observation Tool, from time of admission to the maternity ward, for cases and controls were charted onto each of three Early Warning Tools. The primary outcome was whether the tool 'triggered an escalation of care'. Descriptive statistics (n, %, Mean and SD) were employed. Cases (n=26) comprised late preterm, early term and post-term neonates and matched by gestational age group with 3 controls (n=78). Overall, the Standard Observation Tool triggered an escalation of care for 92.3% of cases compared to the Early Warning Tools; New South Wales Health 80.8%, United Kingdom Newborn Early Warning Chart 57.7% and The Australian Capital Territory Neonatal Early Warning Score 11.5%. Subgroup analysis by gestational age found differences between the tools in hypothetically triggering an escalation of care. The Standard Observation Tool triggered an escalation of care more frequently than the Early Warning Tools, which may be as a result of behavioural data captured on the Standard Observation Tool and escalated, which could not be on the Early Warning Tools. Findings demonstrate that a single tool applied to all gestational age ranges may not be effective in identifying early deterioration or may over trigger an escalation of care. Further research is required into the sensitivity and specificity of Early Warning Tools in neonatal sub-populations.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 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 %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Other 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 33 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 32 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,516,483
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#1,802
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,871
of 368,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#36
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 368,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.