↓ Skip to main content

Early versus delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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 delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001456.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicia L Bahadue, Roger Soll

Abstract

Clinical trials have confirmed that surfactant therapy is effective in improving the immediate need for respiratory support and the clinical outcome of premature newborns. Trials have studied a wide variety of surfactant preparations used either to prevent (prophylactic or delivery room administration) or treat (selective or rescue administration) respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Using either treatment strategy, significant reductions in the incidence of pneumothorax, as well as significant improvement in survival, have been noted. It is unclear whether there are any advantages to treating infants with respiratory insufficiency earlier in the course of RDS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 131 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Postgraduate 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Psychology 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 25 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 November 2012.
All research outputs
#9,676,725
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,184
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,650
of 286,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#371
of 412 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 286,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 412 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.