↓ Skip to main content

Specialist teams for neonatal transport to neonatal intensive care units for prevention of morbidity and mortality

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Specialist teams for neonatal transport to neonatal intensive care units for prevention of morbidity and mortality
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007485.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alvin SM Chang, Andrew Berry, Lisa J Jones, Subramaniam Sivasangari

Abstract

Maternal antenatal transfers provide better neonatal outcomes. However, there will inevitably be some infants who require acute transport to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Because of this, many institutions develop services to provide neonatal transport by specially trained health personnel. However, few studies report on relevant clinical outcomes in infants requiring transport to NICU. To determine the effects of specialist transport teams compared with non-specialist transport teams on the risk of neonatal mortality and morbidity among high-risk newborn infants requiring transport to neonatal intensive care. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 July 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 31 July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to 31 July 2015), conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Study design: randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials. neonates requiring transport to a neonatal intensive care unit. transport by a specialist team compared to a non-specialist team. any of the following outcomes - death; adverse events during transport leading to respiratory compromise; and condition on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the information provided in the studies and by personal communication with the author. Data on relevant outcomes were extracted and the effect size estimated and reported as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Data from cluster randomised trials were not combined for analysis. One trial met the inclusion criteria of this review but was considered ineligible owing to serious bias in the reporting of the results. There is no reliable evidence from randomised trials to support or refute the effects of specialist neonatal transport teams for neonatal retrieval on infant morbidity and mortality. Cluster randomised trial study designs may be best suited to provide us with answers on effectiveness and clinical outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 29%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Other 6 7%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 12 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,860,142
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,101
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,478
of 275,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#218
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 275,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.