↓ Skip to main content

Routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction versus no suction at birth

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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
54 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 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
Routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction versus no suction at birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010332.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jann P Foster, Jennifer A Dawson, Peter G Davis, Hannah G Dahlen

Abstract

Oro/nasopharyngeal suction is a method used to clear secretions from the oropharynx and nasopharynx through the application of negative pressure via a suction catheter or bulb syringe. Traditionally, airway oro/nasopharyngeal suction at birth has been used routinely to remove fluid rapidly from the oropharynx and nasopharynx in vigorous and non-vigorous infants at birth. Concerns relating to the reported adverse effects of oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning led to a practice review and routine oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning is no longer recommended for vigorous infants. However, it is important to know whether there is any clear benefit or harm for infants whose oro/nasopharyngeal airway is suctioned compared to infants who are not suctioned. To evaluate the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to April 18, 2016), Embase (1980 to April 18, 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to April 18, 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials that evaluated the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants with and without meconium-stained amniotic fluid. The review authors extracted from the reports of the clinical trials, data regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, need for resuscitation, admission to neonatal intensive care, five minute Apgar score, episodes of apnoea and length of hospital stay. Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and only included term infants (n = 4011). Five studies included infants with no fetal distress and clear amniotic fluid, one large study included vigorous infants with clear or meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and two large studies included infants with thin or thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Overall, there was no statistical difference between oro/nasopharyngeal suction and no oro/nasopharyngeal suction for all reported outcomes: mortality (typical RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.53; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.01; I(2) = 0%, studies = 2, participants = 3023), need for resuscitation (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00; I(2) = 0%, studies = 5, participants = 3791), admission to NICU (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.01; I(2) = 27%, studies = 2, participants = 997) and Apgar scores at five minutes (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.02; I(2) not estimated, studies = 3, participants = 330). The currently available evidence does not support or refute the benefits or harms of routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction over no suction. Further high-quality studies are required in preterm infants or term newborn infants with thick meconium amniotic fluid. Studies should investigate long-term effects such as neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 %
Unspecified 21 30%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 25 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 17%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 7 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 04 June 2017.
All research outputs
#447,371
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,385
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,432
of 263,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#47
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 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 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. 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 263,444 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.