↓ Skip to main content

Head midline position for preventing the occurrence or extension of germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Head midline position for preventing the occurrence or extension of germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012362.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga Romantsik, Maria Grazia Calevo, Matteo Bruschettini

Abstract

Preterm birth is known to constitute the major risk factor for development of germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage (GM-IVH). Head position may affect cerebral hemodynamics and thus may be involved indirectly in development of GM-IVH. Turning the head toward one side may functionally occlude jugular venous drainage on the ipsilateral side while increasing intracranial pressure and cerebral blood volume. Thus, it has been suggested that cerebral venous pressure is reduced and hydrostatic brain drainage improved if the patient is in supine midline position with the bed tilted 30°. The midline position might be achieved in the supine position and, with the use of physical aids, in the lateral position as well. Midline position should be kept, at least when the incidence of GM-IVH is greatest, that is, during the first two to three days of life. Primary objective To assess whether head midline position is more effective than any other head position for preventing or extending germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage in infants born at ≤ 32 weeks' gestational age. Secondary objectives To perform subgroup analyses regarding gestational age, birth weight, intubated versus not intubated, and with or without GM-IVH at trial entry. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to September 19, 2016), Embase (1980 to September 19,.2016), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to September 19, 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. Randomized clinical controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, and cluster-randomized controlled trials comparing placing very preterm infants in a head midline position versus placing them in a prone or lateral decubitus position, or undertaking a strategy of regular position change, or having no prespecified position. We included trials enrolling infants with existing GM-IVH and planned to assess extension of hemorrhage in a subgroup of infants. We planned to analyze horizontal (flat) versus head elevated positions separately for all body positions. We used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. For each of the included trials, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g., number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, initiation and duration of head midline position, co-intervention with horizontal vs head elevated position, use of physical aids to maintain head position) and assessed risk of bias (e.g., adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review are GM-IVH , severe IVH, and neonatal death. Our search strategy yielded 2696 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. Two randomized controlled trials, for a total of 110 infants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Both trials compared supine midline head position with the bed at 0° versus supine head rotated 90° with the bed at 0°. We found no trials that compared supine versus prone midline head position, and no trials that compared effects of head tilting. We found no significant differences in rates of GM-IVH (typical risk ratio [RR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 2.35; typical risk difference [RD] 0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.18; two studies, 110 infants; I(2) = 0% for RR and I(2) = 0% for RD), severe IVH (typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.98; typical RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.10; two studies, 110 infants; I(2) = 0% for RR and I(2) = 0% for RD), and neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.65; typical RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.05; two studies, 110 infants; I(2) = 28% for RR and I(2) = 44% for RD). Among secondary outcomes, we found no significant differences in terms of cystic periventricular leukomalacia (one study; RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 76.01; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.15), retinopathy of prematurity (one study; RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 6.11; RD 0.25, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.53), and severe retinopathy of prematurity (one study; RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.31 to 24.14; RD 0.09, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.26). None of the included trials reported on the other specified outcomes of this review (i.e., cerebellar hemorrhage, brain magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities, impairment in cerebral hemodynamics, long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, and major neurodevelopmental disability). The quality of evidence supporting these findings is limited owing to the imprecision of the estimates. We identified no ongoing studies. Given the imprecision of the estimate, results of this systematic review are consistent with beneficial or detrimental effects of a supine head midline position versus a lateral position and do not provide a definitive answer to the review question.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 14 10%
Other 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 32 23%
Unknown 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 31 22%

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 21 June 2019.
All research outputs
#659,511
of 14,559,106 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,944
of 11,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,607
of 266,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,559,106 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 11,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. 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 266,459 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 262 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 69% of its contemporaries.