↓ Skip to main content

Fluid restriction for treatment of preterm infants with chronic lung disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Fluid restriction for treatment of preterm infants with chronic lung disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005389.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith J Barrington, Etienne Fortin-Pellerin, Thomas Pennaforte

Abstract

Fluid restriction is often recommended as part of the management of infants with early or established bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). To determine whether fluid restriction as part of the therapeutic intervention for early or established BPD improves clinical outcomes. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 16 February 2016), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 16 February 2016), Embase (1980 to 16 February 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 16 February 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Prospective randomised clinical trials comparing two distinct fluid administration volumes in preterm infants with early or established BPD. We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. For the included trial, we extracted data and assessed the risk of bias, and used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. The outcomes considered in this review are effects on mortality or requirement for oxygen at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (primary outcome measure), the duration of supplemental oxygen therapy, proportion of infants discharged from hospital on oxygen, duration of assisted ventilation, duration of hospitalisation, weight gain, feeding tolerance, apnoea, necrotizing enterocolitis, renal dysfunction or nephrocalcinosis, lung mechanics, and use of diuretic therapy (secondary outcome measures). One trial was found, including 60 preterm infants at 28 days of age with persistent oxygen requirements. Infants were randomised to either 180 mL/kg/day of standard formula or 145 mL/kg/day of concentrated formula. This single study did not provide data regarding our primary outcome. No effects of the intervention were found on any of our secondary outcomes. The quality of the evidence from this study was graded low. There is no evidence to support the practice of fluid restriction in infants with early or established BPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 16 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,068,187
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,341
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,929
of 337,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 193 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 91st 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 337,960 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 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 56% of its contemporaries.