↓ Skip to main content

Infant pacifiers for reduction in risk of sudden infant death syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Infant pacifiers for reduction in risk of sudden infant death syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011147.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim Psaila, Jann P Foster, Neil Pulbrook, Heather E Jeffery

Abstract

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been most recently defined as the sudden unexpected death of an infant less than one year of age, with onset of the fatal episode apparently occurring during sleep, that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation, including the performance of a complete autopsy and a review of the circumstances of death and clinical history. Despite the success of several prevention campaigns, SIDS remains a leading cause of infant mortality. In 1994, a 'triple risk model' for SIDS was proposed that described SIDS as an event that results from the intersection of three factors: a vulnerable infant; a critical development period in homeostatic control (age related); and an exogenous stressor. The association between pacifier (dummy) use and reduced incidence of SIDS has been shown in epidemiological studies since the early 1990s. Pacifier use, given its low cost, might be a cost-effective intervention for SIDS prevention if it is confirmed effective in randomised controlled trials. To determine whether the use of pacifiers during sleep versus no pacifier during sleep reduces the risk of SIDS. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL to 16 March 2016. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Published and unpublished controlled trials using random and quasi-random allocations of infants born at term and at preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or with low birth weight (< 2500 g). Infants must have been randomised by one month' postmenstrual age. We planned to include studies reported only by abstracts, and cluster and cross-over randomised trials. Two review authors independently reviewed studies from searches. We found no eligible studies. We identified no randomised controlled trials examining infant pacifiers for reduction in risk of SIDS. We found no randomised control trial evidence on which to support or refute the use of pacifiers for the prevention of SIDS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Student > Master 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 24%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 11 January 2018.
All research outputs
#663,587
of 14,759,838 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,936
of 11,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,308
of 264,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,759,838 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 264,251 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.