↓ Skip to main content

Early planned removal versus expectant management of peripherally inserted central catheters to prevent infection in newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Early planned removal versus expectant management of peripherally inserted central catheters to prevent infection in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012141.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrienne Gordon, Mark Greenhalgh, William McGuire

Abstract

Duration of use may be a modifiable risk factor for central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in newborn infants. Early planned removal of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) is recommended as a strategy to reduce the incidence of infection and its associated morbidity and mortality. To determine the effectiveness of early planned removal of PICCs (up to two weeks after insertion) compared to an expectant approach or a longer fixed duration in preventing bloodstream infection and other complications in newborn infants. We searched of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Maternity & Infant Care Database, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (until April 2018), and conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of early planned removal of umbilical venous catheters (up to two weeks after insertion) compared to an expectant management approach or a longer fixed duration in preventing bloodstream infection and other complications in newborn infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility independently. We planned to analyse any treatment effects in the individual trials and report the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We planned to use a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explore potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We planned to assess the quality of evidence for the main comparison at the outcome level using "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) methods. We did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials. There are no trial data to guide practice regarding early planned removal versus expectant management of PICCs in newborn infants. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical dilemma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Unspecified 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 27%
Unspecified 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 20 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#942,924
of 14,480,108 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,813
of 10,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,091
of 273,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#69
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,480,108 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 10,981 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 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 273,341 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 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 58% of its contemporaries.