↓ Skip to main content

Glycerin laxatives for prevention or treatment of feeding intolerance in very low birth weight infants

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Glycerin laxatives for prevention or treatment of feeding intolerance in very low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010464.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasim Anabrees, Vibhuti S Shah, Ahlam AlOsaimi, Khalid AlFaleh

Abstract

Feeding intolerance is a common clinical problem among preterm infants. It may be an early sign of necrotising enterocolitis, sepsis or other serious gastrointestinal conditions, or it may result from gut immaturity with delayed passage of meconium. Glycerin laxatives stimulate passage of meconium by acting as an osmotic dehydrating agent and increasing osmotic pressure in the gut; they stimulate rectal contraction, potentially reducing the incidence of feeding intolerance. To assess the effectiveness and safety of glycerin laxatives (enemas/suppositories) for prevention or treatment of feeding intolerance in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We restricted our search to all randomised controlled trials and applied no language restrictions. We searched the references of identified studies and reviews on this topic and handsearched for additional articles. We searched the database maintained by the US National Institutes of Health (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and European trial registries to identify ongoing trials. We considered only randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that enrolled preterm infants < 32 weeks' gestational age (GA) and/or < 1500 g birth weight. We included trials if they administered glycerin laxatives and measured at least one prespecified clinical outcome. We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Group to assess methodological quality of trials, to collect data and to perform analyses. We identified three trials that evaluated use of prophylactic glycerin laxatives in preterm infants. We identified no trials that evaluated therapeutic use of glycerin laxatives for feeding intolerance. Our review showed that prophylactic administration of glycerin laxatives did not reduce the time required to achieve full enteral feeds and did not influence secondary outcomes, including duration of hospital stay, mortality and weight at discharge. Prophylactic administration of glycerin laxatives resulted in failure of fewer infants to pass stool over the first 48 hours. Included trials reported no adverse events. Our review of available evidence for glycerin laxatives does not support the routine use of prophylactic glycerin laxatives in clinical practice. Additional studies are needed to confirm or refute the effectiveness and safety of glycerin laxatives for prevention or treatment of feeding intolerance in VLBW infants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Unspecified 8 10%
Other 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 35%
Unspecified 16 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,921,325
of 13,390,335 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,826
of 10,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,124
of 251,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#209
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,390,335 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 251,699 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.