↓ Skip to main content

Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
218 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.
Title
Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006982.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iris Morag, Arne Ohlsson

Abstract

Potential benefits and harms of different lighting in neonatal units have not been quantified. • To determine effectiveness and safety of cycled light (CL) (approximately 12 hours of light on and 12 hours of light off) for growth in preterm infants at three and six months' corrected age (CA).• In separate analyses, to compare effects of CL with those of irregularly dimmed light (DL) or near darkness (ND), and effects of CL with those of continuous bright light (CBL), on growth in preterm infants at three and six months' CA.• To assess, in subgroup analyses, the effectiveness and safety of CL (vs control interventions (DL, ND and CBL)) introduced at different postmenstrual ages (PMAs) - before 32 weeks', at 32 weeks' and from 36 weeks' PMA - and to compare effectiveness and safety of CL for small for gestational age (GA) infants versus appropriately grown infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 2016), Embase (1980 to January 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of CL versus ND or CBL in preterm and low birth weight infants. We performed data collection and analyses according to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. We identified one additional study enrolling 38 participants for inclusion in this update, for a total of nine studies reporting on 544 infants. In general, the quality of the studies was low, mainly owing to lack of blinding and small sample sizes.Six studies enrolling 424 infants compared CL versus ND. No study reported on weight at three or six months. One study (n = 40) found no statistically significant difference in weight at four months between CL and ND groups. In another study (n = 62), the ratio of day-night activity before discharge favoured the CL group (mean difference (MD) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.19), indicating 18% more activity during the day than during the night in the CL group compared with the ND group. Two studies (n = 189) reported on retinopathy of prematurity (stage ≥ 3) and reported no statistically significant differences between CL and ND groups (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11, I(2) = 0%; typical risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01, I(2) = 0%). Two studies (n = 77) reported length of hospital stay (days) and noted a significant reduction in length of stay between CL and ND groups favouring the CL group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -13 days, 95% CI -23 to -2, I(2) = 0%; no heterogeneity). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE was low for this outcome. One study (n = 37) reported less crying at 11 weeks' corrected age (CA) in the CL group compared with the ND group (MD -0.57 hours/24 h, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.05). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable.Three studies enrolling 120 infants compared CL versus CBL. Two studies (n = 79) reported significantly shorter length of stay in the CL group compared with the CBL group (WMD -16.5 days, 95% CI -26.2 to -6.8, I(2) = 0%; no heterogeneity). The quality of the evidence according to GRADE was low for this outcome. One study (n = 41) reported higher mean weight at three months' CA among infants cared for in the CL nursery (P value < 0.02) and a lower mean number of hours spent awake in 24 hours at three months of age (P value < 0.005). Data could not be entered into RevMan or GRADE. One study (n = 41) reported shorter time on the ventilator in the CL compared with the CBL group (MD -18.2 days, 95% CI -31.40 to -5.0). One study (n = 41) reported a shorter time to first oral feeding in the CL group (MD -6.8 days, 95% CI -13.29 to -0.31). We identified no safety issues. Trials assessing the effects of CL have enrolled 544 infants. No study reported on our primary outcome of weight at three or six months. Results from one additional study strengthen our findings that CL versus CBL shortens length of stay, as does CL versus ND. The quality of the evidence on both comparisons for this outcome according to GRADE was low. Future research should focus on comparing CL versus ND.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 209 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 21%
Unspecified 34 16%
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Other 55 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 42%
Unspecified 38 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 6%
Psychology 11 5%
Other 41 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#696,407
of 12,881,328 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,344
of 10,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,279
of 263,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#45
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,881,328 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 263,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 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 71% of its contemporaries.