↓ Skip to main content

Saline irrigation for the management of skin extravasation injury in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Saline irrigation for the management of skin extravasation injury in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008404.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

P N Gopalakrishnan, Nitin Goel, Sujoy Banerjee

Abstract

Extravasation injury, a complication commonly seen in the neonatal intensive care unit, can result in scarring with cosmetic and functional sequelae. A wide variety of treatments are available, including subcutaneous irrigation with saline (with or without hyaluronidase), liposuction, use of specific antidotes, topical applications, and normal wound care with dry or wet dressings. All such treatments aim to prevent or reduce the severity of complications. Primary objective To compare the efficacy and safety of saline irrigation or saline irrigation with prior hyaluronidase infiltration versus no intervention or normal wound care for tissue healing in neonates with extravasation injury. Secondary objectives To evaluate by subgroup analysis of controlled trials the influence of type of extravasate, timing of irrigation following extravasation, and postmenstrual age (PMA) of the neonate at the time of injury on outcomes and adverse effects.Specifically, we planned to perform subgroup analysis for the primary outcome, if appropriate, by examining:1. time to irrigation from identified extravasation injury (< 1 hour or ≥ 1 hour);2. type of extravasate (parenteral nutrition fluid or other fluids or medications);3. amount of saline used (< 500 mL or ≥ 500 mL); and4. PMA at injury (< 37 completed weeks or ≥ 37 completed weeks). We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 2 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 February 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 2 February 2017). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We used the Google Scholar search tool for reverse citations of relevant articles. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing saline irrigation with or without hyaluronidase infiltration versus no intervention or normal wound care for the management of extravasation injury in neonates. Three review authors independently reviewed and identified articles for possible inclusion in this review. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We found no eligible studies. Our search revealed 10 case reports or case series describing successful outcomes with different interventions for this condition. To date, no RCTs have examined the effects of saline irrigation with or without prior hyaluronidase infiltration for management of extravasation injury in neonates. Saline irrigation is frequently reported in the literature as an intervention for management of extravasation injury in neonates. Research should focus first on evaluating the efficacy and safety of this intervention through RCTs. It will also be important for investigators to determine effect size by examining the timing of the intervention, the nature of the infusate, and severity of injury at the time of intervention.

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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 24%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 21 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,743,282
of 14,480,108 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,515
of 10,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,076
of 267,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#183
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,480,108 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.