↓ Skip to main content

Antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for preventing preterm delivery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 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
Antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for preventing preterm delivery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD006178.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sangkomkamhang, Ussanee S, Lumbiganon, Pisake, Prasertcharoensuk, Witoon, Laopaiboon, Malinee

Abstract

Genital tract infection is associated with preterm birth (before 37 weeks' gestation). Screening for infections during pregnancy may therefore reduce the numbers of babies being born prematurely. However, screening for infections may have some adverse effects, such as increased antibiotic drug resistance and increased cost of treatment. To assess the effectiveness of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for reducing preterm birth and subsequent morbidity. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7) and reference lists of retrieved reports. We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in any language that evaluated any described methods of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening compared with no screening. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. One study (4155 women at less than 20 weeks' gestation) met the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (2058 women) received infection screening and treatment for bacterial vaginosis, trichomonas vaginalis and candidiasis; the control group (2097 women) also received screening, but the results of the screening program were not revealed and women received routine antenatal care. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was significantly lower in the intervention group (3% versus 5% in the control group) with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.75; the evidence for this outcome was graded as of moderate quality). The incidence of preterm birth for infants with a weight equal to or below 2500 g (low birthweight) and infants with a weight equal to or below 1500 g (very low birthweight) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66 and RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75, respectively; both graded as moderate quality evidence). Based on a subset of costs for preterm births of < 1900 g, the authors reported that for each of those preterm births averted, EUR 60,262 would be saved. There is evidence from one trial that infection screening and treatment programs for pregnant women before 20 weeks' gestation reduce preterm birth and preterm low birthweight. Infection screening and treatment programs are associated with cost savings when used for the prevention of preterm birth. Future trials should evaluate the effects of different types of infection screening programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Unknown 171 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 22%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 38 21%
Unknown 25 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 29 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,705,483
of 7,601,780 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,144
of 8,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,964
of 215,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,601,780 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 8,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 215,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.