↓ Skip to main content

Bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (92nd 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
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003214.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geraldine Ng, Orlando da Silva, Arne Ohlsson

Abstract

Chronic lung disease (CLD) occurs frequently in preterm infants. Bronchodilators have the potential effect of dilating small airways with muscle hypertrophy. Increased compliance and tidal volume and decreased pulmonary resistance have been documented with the use of bronchodilators in infants with CLD. Therefore, bronchodilators might have a role in the prevention and treatment of CLD. To determine the effect of bronchodilators given as prophylaxis or as treatment for CLD on mortality and other complications of preterm birth in infants at risk for or identified as having CLD. On 2016 March 7, we used the standard strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1966), Embase (from 1980) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; from 1982). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We applied no language restrictions. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving preterm infants were eligible for inclusion. Initiation of bronchodilator therapy for prevention of CLD had to occur within two weeks of birth. Treatment of patients with CLD had to be initiated before discharge from the neonatal unit. The intervention had to include administration of a bronchodilator by nebulisation, by metered dose inhaler (with or without a spacer device) or by intravenous or oral administration versus placebo or no intervention. Eligible studies had to include at least one of the following predefined clinical outcomes: mortality, CLD, number of days on oxygen, number of days on ventilator, patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), pulmonary interstitial emphysema (PIE), pneumothorax, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) of any grade, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), sepsis and adverse effects of bronchodilators. We used the standard method described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). Two review authors extracted and assessed all data provided by each study. We reported risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach. For this update, we identified one new randomised controlled trial investigating effects of bronchodilators in preterm infants. This study, which enrolled 73 infants but reported on 52 infants, examined prevention of CLD with the use of aminophylline. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was very low. One previously included study enrolled 173 infants to look at prevention of CLD with the use of salbutamol. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was moderate. We found no eligible trial that studied the use of bronchodilator therapy for treatment of individuals with CLD. Prophylaxis with salbutamol led to no statistically significant differences in mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.31; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) nor in CLD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.17). Results showed no statistically significant differences in other complications associated with CLD nor in preterm birth. Investigators in this study did not comment on side effects due to salbutamol. Prophylaxis with aminophylline led to a significant reduction in CLD at 28 days of life (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; RD -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.13; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 8) and no significant difference in mortality (RR 3.0, 95% CI 0.33 to 26.99; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.22), along with a significantly shorter dependency on supplementary oxygen in the aminophylline group compared with the no treatment group (MD -17.75 days, 95% CI -27.56 to -7.94). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses, as each meta-analysis included only one study. Data are insufficient for reliable assessment of the use of salbutamol for prevention of CLD. One trial of poor quality reported a reduction in the incidence of CLD and shorter duration of supplementary oxygen with prophylactic aminophylline, but these results must be interpreted with caution. Additional clinical trials are necessary to assess the role of bronchodilator agents in prophylaxis or treatment of CLD. Researchers studying the effects of bronchodilators in preterm infants should include relevant clinical outcomes in addition to pulmonary mechanical outcomes. We identified no trials that studied the use of bronchodilator therapy for treatment of CLD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 119 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 24 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#625,134
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,101
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,742
of 366,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 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 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 366,994 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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.