↓ Skip to main content

Sildenafil for pulmonary hypertension in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
92 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Sildenafil for pulmonary hypertension in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005494.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren E Kelly, Arne Ohlsson, Prakeshkumar S Shah

Abstract

Persistent pulmonary hypertension in the neonate (PPHN) is associated with high mortality. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for PPHN consists of assisted ventilation and administration of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). However, nitric oxide is costly, and its use may not be appropriate in resource-poor settings. Approximately 30% of patients fail to respond to iNO. High concentrations of phosphodiesterases in the pulmonary vasculature have led to the use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors such as sildenafil or milrinone. To assess the efficacy and safety of sildenafil for treatment of pulmonary hypertension in neonates. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 18 April 2017), Embase (1980 to 18 April 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 18 April 2017). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of sildenafil compared with placebo or other pulmonary vasodilators, irrespective of dose, route, and duration of administration, in neonates with pulmonary hypertension, if investigators reported any of the prespecified outcomes. We assessed the methodological quality of trials regarding how bias was minimised at study entry, during study intervention, and at outcomes measurement. We extracted data on relevant outcomes; we estimated the effect size and reported it as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), or mean difference (MD), as appropriate. We applied the I(2) test of heterogeneity and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. For this update, we identified two additional studies, for a total of five eligible trials that enrolled 166 infants. The methodological quality of these studies ranged from low to high risk of bias. Three studies were performed in resource-limited settings, where iNO and high-frequency ventilation were not available at the time of the study. One study compared sildenafil versus active controls, and another study evaluated sildenafil as adjuvant therapy to iNO. When comparing sildenafil with placebo, investigators noted significant reduction in mortality in the sildenafil alone group (three studies, 77 participants; typical RR 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.56; I(2) = 0% - none; typical RR -0.36, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.18; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3, 95% CI 2 to 6; I(2) = 39% - low). Trials reported no significant differences in mortality upon comparison of the sildenafil group versus the active control group (one study, 65 participants; typical RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.75), or when iNO was administered to both groups (one study, 24 participants; typical RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.28). Physiological parameters of oxygenation (oxygenation index, partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2)) suggested steady improvement after the first dose of sildenafil. None of the included trials identified any clinically important side effects. We rated the quality of evidence as low to very low owing to imprecision related to small sample size and unclear methodological features. Sildenafil used for treatment of pulmonary hypertension has potential for reducing mortality and improving oxygenation in neonates, especially in resource-limited settings where iNO is not available. However, large-scale randomised trials comparing sildenafil versus active controls (other pulmonary vasodilators) and providing follow-up for survivors are needed to assess the comparative effectiveness and long-term safety of sildenafil versus other pulmonary vasodilators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 108 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 17%
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 29 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 23 April 2019.
All research outputs
#325,738
of 14,501,879 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#812
of 10,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,137
of 269,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,501,879 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 269,100 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.