↓ Skip to main content

Early versus late erythropoietin for preventing red blood cell transfusion in preterm and/or low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
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 (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Early versus late erythropoietin for preventing red blood cell transfusion in preterm and/or low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004865.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjay M Aher, Arne Ohlsson

Abstract

Low plasma levels of erythropoietin (EPO) in preterm infants provide a rationale for the use of EPO to prevent or treat anaemia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of early versus late initiation of EPO in reducing red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in preterm and/or low birth weight (LBW) infants. The standard search of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) was performed in 2006 and updated in 2009. Updated search in September 2009 as follows: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (search via PubMed), CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from 2005 to September 2009. The searches were repeated in March 2012. The Pediatric Academic Societies' Annual meetings were searched electronically from 2000 to 2012 at Abstracts2View(TM) as were clinical trials registries (clinicaltrials.gov; controlled-trials.com; and who.int/ictrp). Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials enrolling preterm or LBW infants less than eight days of age. Early initiation of EPO (initiated at less than eight days of age) versus late initiation of EPO (initiated at eight to 28 days of age). The standard methods of the CNRG were followed. Weighted treatment effects included typical risk ratio (RR), typical risk difference (RD), number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB), number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) and mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A fixed-effect model was used for meta-analyses and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I-squared (I(2)) test. No new trials were identified in March of 2012. Two high quality randomised double-blind controlled studies enrolling 262 infants were identified. A non-significant reduction in the 'Use of one or more RBC transfusions' [two studies 262 infants; typical RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.06); typical RD -0.07 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.04; I(2) = 0% for both RR and RD] favouring early EPO was noted. Early EPO administration resulted in a non-significant reduction in the "number of transfusions per infant" compared with late EPO [typical MD - 0.32 (95% CI -0.92 to 0.29)]. There was no significant reduction in total volume of blood transfused per infant or in the number of donors to whom the infant was exposed. Early EPO led to a significant increase in the risk of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (all stages) [two studies, 191 infants; typical RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.86); typical RD 0.16 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.29); NNTH 6 (95% CI 3 to 33)]. There was high heterogeneity for this outcome (I(2) = 86% for RR and 81% for RD). Both studies (191 infants) reported on ROP stage ≥ 3. No statistically significant increase in risk was noted [typical RR 1.56 (95% CI 0.71 to 3.41); typical RD 0.05 (-0.04 to 0.14)] There was no heterogeneity for this outcome (0% for both RR and RD). No other important favourable or adverse neonatal outcomes or side effects were reported. The use of early EPO did not significantly reduce the 'Use of one or more RBC transfusions' or the 'Number of transfusions per infant" compared with late EPO administration. The finding of a statistically significant increased risk of ROP (any grade) and a similar trend for ROP stage ≥ 3 with early EPO treatment is of great concern.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 58%
Student > Bachelor 4 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 29 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,001,546
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,957
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,326
of 140,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 140,620 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 77 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 74% of its contemporaries.