↓ Skip to main content

Immunoglobulin for alloimmune hemolytic disease in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Immunoglobulin for alloimmune hemolytic disease in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003313.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolien Zwiers, Mirjam EA Scheffer-Rath, Enrico Lopriore, Masja de Haas, Helen G Liley

Abstract

Exchange transfusion and phototherapy have traditionally been used to treat jaundice and avoid the associated neurological complications. Because of the risks and burdens of exchange transfusion, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has been suggested as an alternative therapy for alloimmune hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN) to reduce the need for exchange transfusion. To assess the effect and complications of IVIg in newborn infants with alloimmune HDN on the need for and number of exchange transfusions. We performed electronic searches of CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Academic Search Premier, and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and controlled-trials.com in May 2017. We also searched reference lists of included and excluded trials and relevant reviews for further relevant studies. We considered all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of IVIg in the treatment of alloimmune HDN. Trials must have used predefined criteria for the use of IVIg and exchange transfusion therapy to be included. We used the standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group. We assessed studies for inclusion and two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We discussed any differences of opinion to reach consensus. We contacted investigators for additional or missing information. We calculated risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for categorical outcomes. We calculated mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. We used GRADE criteria to assess the risk of bias for major outcomes and to summarize the level of evidence. Nine studies with 658 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Term and preterm infants with Rh or ABO (or both) incompatibility were included. The use of exchange transfusion decreased significantly in the immunoglobulin treated group (typical RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.49; typical RD -0.22, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.16; NNTB 5). The mean number of exchange transfusions per infant was also significantly lower in the immunoglobulin treated group (MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.17). However, sensitivity analysis by risk of bias showed that in the only two studies in which the treatment was masked by use of a placebo and outcome assessment was blinded, the results differed; there was no difference in the need for exchange transfusions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.98) or number of exchange transfusions (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10). Two studies assessed long-term outcomes and found no cases of kernicterus, deafness or cerebral palsy. Although overall results show a significant reduction in the need for exchange transfusion in infants treated with IVIg, the applicability of the results is limited because of low to very low quality of evidence. Furthermore, the two studies at lowest risk of bias show no benefit of IVIg in reducing the need for and number of exchange transfusions. Based on these results, we have insufficient confidence in the effect estimate for benefit of IVIg to make even a weak recommendation for the use of IVIg for the treatment of alloimmune HDN. Further studies are needed before the use of IVIg for the treatment of alloimmune HDN can be recommended, and should include blinding of the intervention by use of a placebo as well as sufficient sample size to assess the potential for serious adverse effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,587,368
of 14,480,108 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,232
of 10,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,531
of 275,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,480,108 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 275,031 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.