↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotics for neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
48 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Antibiotics for neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006183.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren E Kelly, Sandesh Shivananda, Prashanth Murthy, Ravisha Srinivasjois, Prakeshkumar S Shah

Abstract

Approximately 1 in 10 pregnancies is affected by meconium passage at delivery, which can result in meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). MAS can cause respiratory complications and, very rarely, death. Antibiotics have been prescribed for neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid, with the intention of preventing infection due to potential bacterial contaminants. We conducted this review to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for:1. prevention of infection, morbidity, and mortality among infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) who are asymptomatic at birth; and2. prevention of infection, morbidity, and mortality among infants born through MSAF who have signs and symptoms compatible with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). We performed a literature search using the following databases: MEDLINE (1966 to July 2016); Embase (1980 to July 2016); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to July 2016); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7) in the Cochrane Library. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared antibiotics administered via any route versus placebo or no treatment for prevention of infection among neonates exposed to MSAF, or who developed MAS. We excluded cohort, case control, and any other non-randomised studies and applied no language restrictions. We included studies of term and preterm infants, and we included studies examining use of any antibacterial antibiotics. We included studies that reported on any outcomes of interest. We assessed the methodological quality of included trials by reviewing information provided in study reports and obtained by personal communication with study authors. We extracted data on relevant outcomes, estimated effect size, and reported values as risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. We conducted subgroup analyses for treatment of MAS and for prophylaxis (asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium). Four randomised controlled studies including a total of 695 participants were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated neonates with MAS, and one study assessed asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid. These studies exhibited varying degrees of methodological rigour: Two studies were at low risk of bias, and two were at unclear risk. We graded evidence derived from these studies as low quality. We downgraded overall evidence owing to the large number of participants lost to follow-up in one trial, the small sample sizes of all trials, and unclear methodological details provided for two trials.The primary outcome was risk of early- and late-onset neonatal sepsis. Antibiotics did not decrease the risk of sepsis in neonates with a diagnosis of MAS (RR 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 8.96; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 445 participants, three studies; I² = 0%) nor in asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.34; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.04; 250 participants, one study; I² = 0%). Results show no significant differences in mortality or duration of stay in hospital between groups given antibiotics and control groups of symptomatic and asymptomatic neonates. One study in asymptomatic neonates reported a significant reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation for the control group compared with the antibiotic group (MD 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; 250 participants, one study; I² = 0%). Upon review of available evidence, we found no differences in infection rates following antibiotic treatment among neonates born through meconium-stained fluid and those with meconium aspiration syndrome. The overall quality of evidence is low owing to the small number of included studies. Well-controlled studies of adequate power are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 26%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 13 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#604,529
of 14,259,554 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,793
of 10,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,343
of 266,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,259,554 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 10,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 266,118 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 255 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.