↓ Skip to main content

Repeat doses of prenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth for improving neonatal health outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
341 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
Repeat doses of prenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth for improving neonatal health outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003935.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A Crowther, Christopher JD McKinlay, Philippa Middleton, Jane E Harding

Abstract

It has been unclear whether repeat dose(s) of prenatal corticosteroids are beneficial. To assess the effectiveness and safety of repeat dose(s) of prenatal corticosteroids. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 January 2015), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted authors for further data. Randomised controlled trials of women who had already received a single course of corticosteroids seven or more days previously and considered still at risk of preterm birth. We assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. We included 10 trials (a total of 4733 women and 5700 babies) with low to moderate risk of bias. Treatment of women who remain at risk of preterm birth seven or more days after an initial course of prenatal corticosteroids with repeat dose(s), compared with no repeat corticosteroid treatment, reduced the risk of their infants experiencing the primary outcomes respiratory distress syndrome (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.91, eight trials, 3206 infants, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 17, 95% CI 11 to 32) and serious infant outcome (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.94, seven trials, 5094 infants, NNTB 30, 95% CI 19 to 79).Treatment with repeat dose(s) of corticosteroid was associated with a reduction in mean birthweight (mean difference (MD) -75.79 g, 95% CI -117.63 to -33.96, nine trials, 5626 infants). However, outcomes that adjusted birthweight for gestational age (birthweight Z scores, birthweight multiples of the median and small-for-gestational age) did not differ between treatment groups.At early childhood follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen for infants exposed to repeat prenatal corticosteroids compared with unexposed infants for the primary outcomes (total deaths; survival free of any disability or major disability; disability; or serious outcome) or in the secondary outcome growth assessments. In women, for the two primary outcomes, there was no increase in infectious morbidity of chorioamnionitis or puerperal sepsis, and the likelihood of a caesarean birth was unchanged. The short-term benefits for babies of less respiratory distress and fewer serious health problems in the first few weeks after birth support the use of repeat dose(s) of prenatal corticosteroids for women still at risk of preterm birth seven days or more after an initial course. These benefits were associated with a small reduction in size at birth. The current available evidence reassuringly shows no significant harm in early childhood, although no benefit.Further research is needed on the long-term benefits and risks for the woman and baby. Individual patient data meta-analysis may clarify how to maximise benefit and minimise harm.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 341 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 328 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 17%
Student > Bachelor 53 16%
Researcher 39 11%
Unspecified 38 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 10%
Other 118 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 192 56%
Unspecified 56 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Other 50 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 10 November 2018.
All research outputs
#830,656
of 12,913,752 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,713
of 10,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,655
of 230,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,913,752 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 230,889 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 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 68% of its contemporaries.