↓ Skip to main content

Prostaglandin E1 for maintaining ductal patency in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Prostaglandin E1 for maintaining ductal patency in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011417.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Smita Akkinapally, Shilpa G Hundalani, Madhulika Kulkarni, Caraciolo J Fernandes, Antonio G Cabrera, Binoy Shivanna, Mohan Pammi

Abstract

Prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) is used to keep the ductus arteriosus patent and can be life-saving in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions. PGE1 is used to promote mixing of pulmonary and systemic blood flow or improve pulmonary or systemic circulations, prior to balloon atrial septostomy or surgery. PGE1 therapy may cause several short-term and long-term adverse effects. The efficacy and safety of PGE1 in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions has not been systematically reviewed. To determine the efficacy and safety of both short-term (< 120 hours) and long-term (≥120 hours) PGE1 therapy in maintaining patency of the ductus arteriosus and decreasing mortality in ductal-dependent cardiac lesions. We searched the literature in October 2017, using the search strategy recommended by Cochrane Neonatal. We searched electronic databases (CENTRAL (in the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase); abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies; websites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com; and in the reference list of identified articles. Randomized or quasi-randomized trials using PGE1 at any dose or duration to maintain ductal patency in term or late preterm (≥ 34 weeks' gestation) infants with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions and which reported effectiveness and safety in the short term or long term. We followed the standard Cochrane methods for conducting a systematic review. Two review authors (SA and MP) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy to determine eligibility for inclusion. We obtained the full-text version if eligibility could not be done reliably by title and abstract. We resolved any differences by discussion. We designed electronic forms for trial inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, and for requesting additional published information from authors of the original reports. Our search did not identify any completed or ongoing trials that met our inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials to determine the safety and efficacy of PGE1 in neonates with ductal-dependent cardiac lesions. Evidence from observational trials have informed clinical practice on the use of PGE, which is now considered the standard of care for ductal-dependent cardiac lesions. It is unlikely that randomized controlled studies will be performed for this indication but comparative efficacy of newer formulations of PGE1, different doses of PGE1 and studies comparing PGE with PDA stents or other measures to keep the ductus open may be ethical and necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 18%
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 16 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 19 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#903,709
of 16,085,893 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,486
of 11,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,606
of 279,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,085,893 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 11,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 279,098 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 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 70% of its contemporaries.