↓ Skip to main content

Nitric oxide for respiratory failure in infants born at or near term

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Nitric oxide for respiratory failure in infants born at or near term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000399.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith J Barrington, Neil Finer, Thomas Pennaforte, Gabriel Altit

Abstract

Nitric oxide (NO) is a major endogenous regulator of vascular tone. Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) gas has been investigated as treatment for persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. To determine whether treatment of hypoxaemic term and near-term newborn infants with iNO improves oxygenation and reduces rate of death and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or affects long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 2016), Embase (1980 to January 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We contacted the principal investigators of studies published as abstracts to ascertain the necessary information. Randomised studies of iNO in term and near-term infants with hypoxic respiratory failure, with clinically relevant outcomes, including death, use of ECMO and oxygenation. We analysed trial reports to assess methodological quality using the criteria of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We tabulated mortality, oxygenation, short-term clinical outcomes (particularly use of ECMO) and long-term developmental outcomes. For categorical outcomes, we calculated typical estimates for risk ratios and risk differences. For continuous variables, we calculated typical estimates for weighted mean differences. We used 95% confidence intervals and assumed a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. We found 17 eligible randomised controlled studies that included term and near-term infants with hypoxia.Ten trials compared iNO versus control (placebo or standard care without iNO) in infants with moderate or severe severity of illness scores (Ninos 1996; Roberts 1996; Wessel 1996; Davidson 1997; Ninos 1997; Mercier 1998; Christou 2000; Clark 2000; INNOVO 2007; Liu 2008). Mercier 1998 compared iNO versus control but allowed back-up treatment with iNO for infants who continued to satisfy the same criteria for severity of illness after two hours. This trial enrolled both preterm and term infants but reported most results separately for the two groups. Ninos 1997 studied only infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia.One trial compared iNO versus high-frequency ventilation (Kinsella 1997).Six trials enrolled infants with moderate severity of illness scores (oxygenation index (OI) or alveolar-arterial oxygen difference (A-aDO2)) and randomised them to immediate iNO treatment or iNO treatment only after deterioration to more severe criteria (Barefield 1996; Day 1996; Sadiq 1998; Cornfield 1999; Konduri 2004; Gonzalez 2010).Inhaled nitric oxide appears to have improved outcomes in hypoxaemic term and near-term infants by reducing the incidence of the combined endpoint of death or use of ECMO (high-quality evidence). This reduction was due to a reduction in use of ECMO (with number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 5.3); mortality was not affected. Oxygenation was improved in approximately 50% of infants receiving iNO. The OI was decreased by a (weighted) mean of 15.1 within 30 to 60 minutes after the start of therapy, and partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) was increased by a mean of 53 mmHg. Whether infants had clear echocardiographic evidence of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) did not appear to affect response to iNO. Outcomes of infants with diaphragmatic hernia were not improved; outcomes were slightly, but not significantly, worse with iNO (moderate-quality evidence).Infants who received iNO at less severe criteria did not have better clinical outcomes than those who were enrolled but received treatment only if their condition deteriorated. Fewer of the babies who received iNO early satisfied late treatment criteria, showing that earlier iNO reduced progression of the disease but did not further decrease mortality nor the need for ECMO (moderate-quality evidence). Incidence of disability, incidence of deafness and infant development scores were all similar between tested survivors who received iNO and those who did not. Inhaled nitric oxide is effective at an initial concentration of 20 ppm for term and near-term infants with hypoxic respiratory failure who do not have a diaphragmatic hernia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 219 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 18%
Researcher 32 14%
Other 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Other 42 19%
Unknown 44 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Unspecified 6 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 53 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 21 June 2019.
All research outputs
#468,197
of 15,295,156 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,227
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,792
of 383,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,295,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 383,051 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.