↓ Skip to main content

Kangaroo mother care to reduce morbidity and mortality in low birthweight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
115 tweeters
facebook
29 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Kangaroo mother care to reduce morbidity and mortality in low birthweight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002771.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agustin Conde-Agudelo, José L Díaz-Rossello

Abstract

Kangaroo mother care (KMC), originally defined as skin-to-skin contact between a mother and her newborn, frequent and exclusive or nearly exclusive breastfeeding, and early discharge from hospital, has been proposed as an alternative to conventional neonatal care for low birthweight (LBW) infants. To determine whether evidence is available to support the use of KMC in LBW infants as an alternative to conventional neonatal care before or after the initial period of stabilization with conventional care, and to assess beneficial and adverse effects. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches in CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), and POPLINE (Population Information Online) databases (all from inception to June 30, 2016), as well as the WHO (World Health Organization) Trial Registration Data Set (up to June 30, 2016). In addition, we searched the web page of the Kangaroo Foundation, conference and symposia proceedings on KMC, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials comparing KMC versus conventional neonatal care, or early-onset KMC versus late-onset KMC, in LBW infants. Data collection and analysis were performed according to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Twenty-one studies, including 3042 infants, fulfilled inclusion criteria. Nineteen studies evaluated KMC in LBW infants after stabilization, one evaluated KMC in LBW infants before stabilization, and one compared early-onset KMC with late-onset KMC in relatively stable LBW infants. Sixteen studies evaluated intermittent KMC, and five evaluated continuous KMC. KMC versus conventional neonatal care: At discharge or 40 to 41 weeks' postmenstrual age, KMC was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 to 0.92; eight trials, 1736 infants), nosocomial infection/sepsis (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.54; five trials, 1239 infants), and hypothermia (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49; nine trials, 989 infants; moderate-quality evidence). At latest follow-up, KMC was associated with a significantly decreased risk of mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95; 12 trials, 2293 infants; moderate-quality evidence) and severe infection/sepsis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.69; eight trials, 1463 infants; moderate-quality evidence). Moreover, KMC was found to increase weight gain (mean difference [MD] 4.1 g/d, 95% CI 2.3 to 5.9; 11 trials, 1198 infants; moderate-quality evidence), length gain (MD 0.21 cm/week, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; three trials, 377 infants) and head circumference gain (MD 0.14 cm/week, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22; four trials, 495 infants) at latest follow-up, exclusive breastfeeding at discharge or 40 to 41 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; six studies, 1453 mothers) and at one to three months' follow-up (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.43; five studies, 600 mothers), any (exclusive or partial) breastfeeding at discharge or at 40 to 41 weeks' postmenstrual age (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.34; 10 studies, 1696 mothers; moderate-quality evidence) and at one to three months' follow-up (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31; nine studies, 1394 mothers; low-quality evidence), and some measures of mother-infant attachment and home environment. No statistically significant differences were found between KMC infants and controls in Griffith quotients for psychomotor development at 12 months' corrected age (low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis suggested that inclusion of studies with high risk of bias did not affect the general direction of findings nor the size of the treatment effect for main outcomes. Early-onset KMC versus late-onset KMC in relatively stable infants: One trial compared early-onset continuous KMC (within 24 hours post birth) versus late-onset continuous KMC (after 24 hours post birth) in 73 relatively stable LBW infants. Investigators reported no significant differences between the two study groups in mortality, morbidity, severe infection, hypothermia, breastfeeding, and nutritional indicators. Early-onset KMC was associated with a statistically significant reduction in length of hospital stay (MD 0.9 days, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.2). Evidence from this updated review supports the use of KMC in LBW infants as an alternative to conventional neonatal care, mainly in resource-limited settings. Further information is required concerning the effectiveness and safety of early-onset continuous KMC in unstabilized or relatively stabilized LBW infants, as well as long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes and costs of care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 115 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 50%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 165. 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 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#88,888
of 13,851,278 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#191
of 10,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,534
of 263,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,851,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 263,243 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.