↓ Skip to main content

Heparin for the treatment of thrombosis in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Heparin for the treatment of thrombosis in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012185.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga Romantsik, Matteo Bruschettini, Simona Zappettini, Luca Antonio Ramenghi, Maria Grazia Calevo

Abstract

Among pediatric patients, newborns are at highest risk of developing thromboembolism. Neonatal thromboembolic (TE) events may consist of both venous and arterial thromboses and often iatrogenic complications (eg, central catheterization). Treatment guidelines for pediatric patients with TE events most often are extrapolated from the literature regarding adults. Options for the management of neonatal TE events include expectant management; nitroglycerin ointment; thrombolytic therapy or anticoagulant therapy, or a combination of the two; and surgery. Since the 1990s, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has become the neonatal anticoagulant of choice. Reasons for its appeal include predictable dose response, no need for venous access, and limited monitoring requirements. The overall major complication rate is around 5%. Whether preterm infants are at increased risk is unclear. No data are available on the frequency of osteoporosis, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), or other hypersensitivity reactions in children and neonates exposed to LMWH. To assess whether heparin treatment (both unfractionated heparin [UFH] and LMWH) reduces mortality and morbidity rates in preterm and term newborn infants with diagnosed thrombosis. The intervention is compared with placebo or no treatment. Also, to assess the safety of heparin therapy (both UFH and LMWH) for potential harms.Subgroup analyses were planned to examine gestational age, birth weight, mode of thrombus diagnosis, presence of a central line, positive family history for genetic disorders (thrombophilia, deficiency of protein S and protein C, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase [MTHFR] mutation), route of heparin administration, type of heparin used, and location of thrombus (see "Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity"). We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to May 9, 2016), Embase (1980 to May 9, 2016), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to May 9, 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. Randomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster-randomized controlled trials comparing heparin versus placebo or no treatment in preterm and term neonates with a diagnosis of thrombosis. We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion. Our search strategy yielded 1160 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. We found no completed studies and no ongoing trials for inclusion. We found no studies that met our inclusion criteria and no evidence from randomized controlled trials to recommend or refute the use of heparin for treatment of neonates with thrombosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 27 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,591,664
of 14,356,175 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,242
of 10,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,225
of 289,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,356,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 289,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 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 52% of its contemporaries.