↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to prevent hypothermia at birth in preterm and/or low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
147 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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
Interventions to prevent hypothermia at birth in preterm and/or low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004210.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma M McCall, Fiona Alderdice, Henry L Halliday, Sunita Vohra, Linda Johnston

Abstract

Newborn admission temperature is a strong predictor of outcomes across all gestations. Hypothermia immediately after birth remains a worldwide issue and, if prolonged, is associated with harm. Keeping preterm infants warm is difficult even when recommended routine thermal care guidelines are followed in the delivery room. To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions designed for prevention of hypothermia in preterm and/or low birth weight infants applied within 10 minutes after birth in the delivery room, compared with routine thermal care or any other single/combination of intervention(s) also designed for prevention of hypothermia in preterm and/or low birth weight infants applied within 10 minutes after birth in the delivery room. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 June 2016), Embase (1980 to 30 June 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 June 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Trials using randomised or quasi-randomised allocations to test interventions designed to prevent hypothermia (apart from 'routine' thermal care) applied within 10 minutes after birth in the delivery room for infants at < 37 weeks' gestation and/or birth weight ≤ 2500 grams. We used Cochrane Neonatal methods when performing data collection and analysis. Twenty-five studies across 15 comparison groups met the inclusion criteria, categorised as: barriers to heat loss (18 studies); external heat sources (three studies); and combinations of interventions (four studies).Barriers to heat loss Plastic wrap or bag versus routine carePlastic wraps improved core body temperature on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or up to two hours after birth (mean difference (MD) 0.58°C, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.66; 13 studies; 1633 infants), and fewer infants had hypothermia on admission to the NICU or up to two hours after birth (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.72; typical risk reduction (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.20; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 4 to 5; 10 studies; 1417 infants). Risk of hyperthermia on admission to the NICU or up to two hours after birth was increased in infants in the wrapped group (typical RR 3.91, 95% CI 2.05 to 7.44; typical RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 17 to 50; 12 studies; 1523 infants), but overall, fewer infants receiving plastic wrap were outside the normothermic range (typical RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81; typical RD -0.20, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.15; NNTH 5, 95% CI 4 to 7; five studies; 1048 infants).Evidence was insufficient to suggest that plastic wraps or bags significantly reduce risk of death during hospital stay or other major morbidities, with the exception of reducing risk of pulmonary haemorrhage.Evidence of practices regarding permutations on this general approach is still emerging and has been based on the findings of only one or two small studies.External heat sourcesEvidence is emerging on the efficacy of external heat sources, including skin-to-skin care (SSC) versus routine care (one study; 31 infants) and thermal mattress versus routine care (two studies; 126 infants).SSC was shown to be effective in reducing risk of hypothermia when compared with conventional incubator care for infants with birth weight ≥ 1200 and ≤ 2199 grams (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.64; RD -0.56, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.27; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 4). Thermal (transwarmer) mattress significantly kept infants ≤ 1500 grams warmer (MD 0.65°C, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.94) and reduced the incidence of hypothermia on admission to the NICU, with no significant difference in hyperthermia risk.Combinations of interventionsTwo studies (77 infants) compared thermal mattresses versus plastic wraps or bags for infants at ≤ 28 weeks' gestation. Investigators reported no significant differences in core body temperature nor in the incidence of hypothermia, hyperthermia, or core body temperature outside the normothermic range on admission to the NICU.Two additional studies (119 infants) compared plastic bags and thermal mattresses versus plastic bags alone for infants at < 31 weeks' gestation. Meta-analysis of these two studies showed improvement in core body temperature on admission to the NICU or up to two hours after birth, but an increase in hyperthermia. Data show no significant difference in the risk of having a core body temperature outside the normothermic range on admission to the NICU nor in the risk of other reported morbidities. Evidence of moderate quality shows that use of plastic wraps or bags compared with routine care led to higher temperatures on admission to NICUs with less hypothermia, particularly for extremely preterm infants. Thermal mattresses and SSC also reduced hypothermia risk when compared with routine care, but findings are based on two or fewer small studies. Caution must be taken to avoid iatrogenic hyperthermia, particularly when multiple interventions are used simultaneously. Limited evidence suggests benefit and no evidence of harm for most short-term morbidity outcomes known to be associated with hypothermia, including major brain injury, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis, and nosocomial infection. Many observational studies have shown increased mortality among preterm hypothermic infants compared with those who maintain normothermia, yet evidence is insufficient to suggest that these interventions reduce risk of in-hospital mortality across all comparison groups. Hypothermia may be a marker for illness and poorer outcomes by association rather than by causality. Limitations of this review include small numbers of identified studies; small sample sizes; and variations in methods and definitions used for hypothermia, hyperthermia, normothermia, routine care, and morbidity, along with lack of power to detect effects on morbidity and mortality across most comparison groups. Future studies should: be adequately powered to detect rarer outcomes; apply standardised morbidity definitions; focus on longer-term outcomes, particularly neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 147 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 22%
Student > Bachelor 35 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 41 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 22%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 48 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. 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 02 October 2019.
All research outputs
#148,183
of 14,021,129 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#314
of 10,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,958
of 361,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,021,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 361,207 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.