↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic intravenous indomethacin for preventing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
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

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Prophylactic intravenous indomethacin for preventing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000174.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter W Fowlie, Peter G Davis, William McGuire

Abstract

Persistent patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. Prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors such as indomethacin promote PDA closure but also have potential side effects. The effect of the prophylactic use of indomethacin, where infants who may not have gone on to develop a symptomatic PDA would be exposed to indomethacin, warrants particular scrutiny. To determine the effect of prophylactic indomethacin on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2010), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (until April 2010), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared prophylactic indomethacin versus placebo or no drug in preterm infants. The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. Nineteen eligible trials in which 2872 infants participated were identified. Most participants were very low birth weight, but the largest single trial restricted participation to extremely low birth weight infants (N = 1202). The trials were generally of good quality.The incidence of symptomatic PDA [typical relative risk (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.50] and PDA surgical ligation (typical RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37,0.71) was significantly lower in treated infants. Prophylactic indomethacin also significantly reduced the incidence of severe intraventricular haemorrhage (typical RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). Meta-analyses found no evidence of an effect on mortality (typical RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12) or on a composite of death or severe neurodevelopmental disability assessed at 18 to 36 months old (typical RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90, 1.15). Prophylactic indomethacin has short-term benefits for preterm infants including a reduction in the incidence of symptomatic PDA, PDA surgical ligation, and severe intraventricular haemorrhage. However, there is no evidence of effect on mortality or neurodevelopment.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 153 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Master 20 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 36 23%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 34 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 October 2014.
All research outputs
#2,775,321
of 14,579,754 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,689
of 11,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,034
of 281,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#140
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,579,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,321 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 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.