↓ Skip to main content

NEC-zero recommendations from scoping review of evidence to prevent and foster timely recognition of necrotizing enterocolitis

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology, December 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
NEC-zero recommendations from scoping review of evidence to prevent and foster timely recognition of necrotizing enterocolitis
Published in
Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40748-017-0062-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheila M. Gephart, Corrine Hanson, Christine M. Wetzel, Michelle Fleiner, Erin Umberger, Laura Martin, Suma Rao, Amit Agrawal, Terri Marin, Khaver Kirmani, Megan Quinn, Jenny Quinn, Katherine M. Dudding, Tanya Clay, Jason Sauberan, Yael Eskenazi, Caroline Porter, Amy L. Msowoya, Christina Wyles, Melissa Avenado-Ruiz, Shayla Vo, Kristina M. Reber, Jennifer Duchon

Abstract

Although decades have focused on unraveling its etiology, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) remains a chief threat to the health of premature infants. Both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors contribute to varying rates of disease across neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The purpose of this paper is to present a scoping review with two new meta-analyses, clinical recommendations, and implementation strategies to prevent and foster timely recognition of NEC. Using the Translating Research into Practice (TRIP) framework, we conducted a stakeholder-engaged scoping review to classify strength of evidence and form implementation recommendations using GRADE criteria across subgroup areas: 1) promoting human milk, 2) feeding protocols and transfusion, 3) timely recognition strategies, and 4) medication stewardship. Sub-groups answered 5 key questions, reviewed 11 position statements and 71 research reports. Meta-analyses with random effects were conducted on effects of standardized feeding protocols and donor human milk derived fortifiers on NEC. Quality of evidence ranged from very low (timely recognition) to moderate (feeding protocols, prioritize human milk, limiting antibiotics and antacids). Prioritizing human milk, feeding protocols and avoiding antacids were strongly recommended. Weak recommendations (i.e. "probably do it") for limiting antibiotics and use of a standard timely recognition approach are presented. Meta-analysis of data from infants weighing <1250 g fed donor human milk based fortifier had reduced odds of NEC compared to those fed cow's milk based fortifier (OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.13, 1.00; p = 0.05; 4 studies, N = 1164). Use of standardized feeding protocols for infants <1500 g reduced odds of NEC by 67% (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.17, 0.65, p = 0.001; 9 studies; N = 4755 infants). Parents recommended that NEC information be shared early in the NICU stay, when feedings were adjusted, or feeding intolerance occurred via print and video materials to supplement verbal instruction. Evidence for NEC prevention is of sufficient quality to implement. Implementation that addresses system-level interventions that engage the whole team, including parents, will yield the best impact to prevent NEC and foster its timely recognition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 29 25%
Unknown 38 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Psychology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 47 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,348,749
of 24,287,697 outputs
Outputs from Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology
#7
of 90 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,673
of 448,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,287,697 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 90 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 448,220 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.