↓ Skip to main content

Adjuvant corticosteroids for reducing death in neonatal bacterial meningitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Adjuvant corticosteroids for reducing death in neonatal bacterial meningitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010435.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tinuade A Ogunlesi, Chibuzo C Odigwe, Olufemi T Oladapo

Abstract

Bacterial meningitis remains a significant cause of neonatal and childhood morbidity and mortality in many countries of the world, particularly in developing countries. In some instances, children recover but remain impaired as a result of neurological sequelae such as hearing loss, developmental delay and cognitive impairment. To assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids in reducing death and neurological sequelae in neonates with bacterial meningitis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to July 2015), African Index Medicus (up to January 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (up to July 2015), EMBASE (up to July 2015) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) for ongoing trials. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of adjunctive corticosteroids for treatment of neonates with bacterial meningitis. Two review authors independently assessed and extracted data on methods, participants, interventions and outcomes (all-cause death until hospital discharge, presence of sensorineural deafness at one year and presence of neurological deficits or developmental delay at two years, adverse events). Risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) were calculated when appropriate. We assessed quality using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. We found two trials with 132 participants that met our inclusion criteria. One of the included trials was a quasi-randomised trial.Adjunctive corticosteroids reduced the risk of death (typical RR 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.88; typical RD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.04; NNTB = 6; two studies, 132 participants, very low-quality evidence) but did not have a significant effect on the number of infants with sensorineural deafness at two years (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.21; RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.21; one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). In one trial, dexamethasone reduced the likelihood of hearing loss at four to 10 weeks post discharge (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.98; RD -0.25, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.01; one study, 59 participants, low-quality evidence). Data reported on the other outcomes of interest were insufficient. Very low-quality data from two randomised controlled trials suggest that some reduction in death and hearing loss may result from use of adjunctive steroids alongside standard antibiotic therapy for treatment of patients with neonatal meningitis. Benefit is not yet seen with regards to reduction in neurological sequelae. Researchers who wish to clarify these findings must conduct more robustly designed trials with greater numbers of participants, evaluating more relevant outcomes and providing adequate follow-up.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Unknown 12 80%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Unknown 12 80%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,982,066
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,371
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,921
of 274,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 274,430 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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.