↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia in ventilated very low birth weight preterm neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia in ventilated very low birth weight preterm neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002058.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sachin S Shah, Arne Ohlsson, Henry L Halliday, Vibhuti S Shah

Abstract

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity in preterm infants and inflammation plays a significant role in its pathogenesis. The use of inhaled corticosteroids may modulate the inflammatory process without concomitant high systemic steroid concentrations and less risk of adverse effects. This is an update of a review published in 2012 (Shah 2012). We recently updated the related review on "Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for treating bronchopulmonary dysplasia in ventilated very low birth weight preterm neonates". To determine the effect of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids started within the first 7 days of life on preventing death or BPD in ventilated very low birth weight infants. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 23 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 23 February 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 23 February 2017). We searched clinical trials registers, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled versus systemic corticosteroid therapy (irrespective of dose and duration) starting in the first seven days of life in very low birth weight preterm infants receiving assisted ventilation. Clinical outcomes data were extracted and analysed using Review Manager. When appropriate, meta-analysis was performed using typical relative risk (RR), typical risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD). Meta-analyses were performed using typical relative risk, typical risk difference (RD), and weighted mean difference with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). If RD was statistically significant, the number needed to benefit or the number needed to harm was calculated. We assessed the quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE principles. We included two trials that involved 294 infants. No new studies were included for the 2017 update. The incidence of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age was not statistically significantly different between infants who received inhaled or systemic steroids (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.16; 1 trial, N = 278). The incidence of BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age among survivors was not statistically significant between groups (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.90; RD 0.11, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.24; 1 trial, N = 206). There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of BPD at 28 days, death at 28 days or 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and the combined outcome of death or BPD by 28 days between groups (2 trials, N = 294). The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly longer in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group (typical MD 4 days, 95% CI 0.2 to 8; 2 trials, N = 294; I² = 0%) as was the duration of supplemental oxygen (typical MD 11 days, 95% CI 2 to 20; 2 trials, N = 294; I² = 33%).The incidence of hyperglycaemia was significantly lower with inhaled steroids (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.71; RD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14; 1 trial, N = 278; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 7 to avoid 1 infant experiencing hyperglycaemia). The rate of patent ductus arteriosus increased in the group receiving inhaled steroids (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.17; RD 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.33; 1 trial, N = 278; NNTH 5, 95% CI 3 to 10). In a subset of surviving infants in the United Kingdom and Ireland there were no significant differences in developmental outcomes at 7 years of age. However, there was a reduced risk of having ever been diagnosed as asthmatic by 7 years of age in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group (N = 48) (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.94; RD -0.31, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.05; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 20).According to GRADE the quality of the evidence was moderate to low. Evidence was downgraded on the basis of design (risk of bias), consistency (heterogeneity) and precision of the estimates.Both studies received grant support and the industry provided aero chambers and metered dose inhalers of budesonide and placebo for the larger study. No conflict of interest was identified. We found no evidence that early inhaled steroids confer important advantages over systemic steroids in the management of ventilator-dependent preterm infants. Based on this review inhaled steroids cannot be recommended over systemic steroids as a part of standard practice for ventilated preterm infants. Because they might have fewer adverse effects than systemic steroids, further randomised controlled trials of inhaled steroids are needed that address risk/benefit ratio of different delivery techniques, dosing schedules and long-term effects, with particular attention to neurodevelopmental outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Other 11 11%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 25 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,067,436
of 13,603,158 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,226
of 10,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,821
of 316,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,603,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 316,249 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 87% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.