↓ Skip to main content

Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring for prevention of brain injury in very preterm infants

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring for prevention of brain injury in very preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011506.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Hyttel-Sorensen, Gorm Greisen, Bodil Als-Nielsen, Christian Gluud

Abstract

Cerebral injury and long-term neurodevelopmental impairment is common in extremely preterm infants. Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) enables continuous estimation of cerebral oxygenation. This diagnostic method coupled with appropriate interventions if NIRS is out of normal range (that is cerebral oxygenation within the 55% to 85% range) may offer benefits without causing more harms. Therefore, NIRS coupled with appropriate responses to abnormal findings on NIRS needs assessment in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised studies. To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions that attempt to alter cerebral oxygenation guided by cerebral NIRS monitoring in order to prevent cerebral injury, improve neurological outcome, and increase survival in preterm infants born more than 8 weeks preterm. 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 10 September 2016), Embase (1980 to 10 September 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 10 September 2016). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised studies. Randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised clinical studies comparing continuous cerebral NIRS monitoring for at least 24 hours versus blinded NIRS or versus no NIRS monitoring. Two review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of, and extracted data from the included trials and studies. If necessary, we contacted authors for further information. We conducted assessments of risks of bias; risks of design errors; and controlled the risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the quality of the evidence with GRADE. One randomised clinical trial met inclusion criteria, including infants born more than 12 weeks preterm. The trial employed adequate methodologies and was assessed at low risk of bias. One hundred and sixty-six infants were randomised to start continuous cerebral NIRS monitoring less than 3 hours after birth until 72 hours after birth plus appropriate interventions if NIRS was out of normal range according to a guideline versus conventional monitoring with blinded NIRS. There was no effect of NIRS plus guideline of mortality until term-equivalent age (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.00; one trial; 166 participants). There were no effects of NIRS plus guideline on intraventricular haemorrhages: all grades (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.34; one trial; 166 participants); grade III/IV (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.31; one trial; 166 participants); and cystic periventricular leukomalacia (which did not occur in either group). Likewise, there was no effect of NIRS plus guideline on the occurrence of a patent ductus arteriosus (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.08; one trial; 166 participants); chronic lung disease (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.50; one trial; 166 participants); necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; one trial; 166 participants); and retinopathy of prematurity (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.00; one trial; 166 participants). There were no serious adverse events in any of the intervention groups. NIRS plus guideline caused more skin marks from the NIRS sensor in the control group than in the experimental group (unadjusted RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.92; one trial; 166 participants). There are no data regarding neurodevelopmental outcome, renal impairment or air leaks.The quality of evidence for all comparisons discussed above was assessed as very low apart from all-cause mortality and adverse events: these were assessed as low and moderate, respectively. The validity of all comparisons is hampered by a small sample of randomised infants, risk of bias due to lack of blinding, and indirectness of outcomes. The only eligible randomised clinical trial did not demonstrate any consistent effects of NIRS plus a guideline on the assessed clinical outcomes. The trial was, however, only powered to detect difference in cerebral oxygenation, not morbidities or mortality. Our systematic review did not reach sufficient power to prove or disprove effects on clinical outcomes. Further randomised clinical trials with low risks of bias and low risks of random errors are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 18%
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Other 10 10%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 27 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 08 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,040,949
of 14,259,008 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,708
of 10,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,253
of 269,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#144
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,259,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 269,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.