↓ Skip to main content

Oropharyngeal colostrum in preventing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Oropharyngeal colostrum in preventing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011921.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amna Widad A Nasuf, Shalini Ojha, Jon Dorling

Abstract

Placing a small volume of colostrum directly onto the buccal mucosa of preterm infants during the early neonatal period may provide immunological and growth factors that stimulate the immune system and enhance intestinal growth. These benefits could potentially reduce the risk of infection and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and improve survival and long-term outcome. To determine if early (within the first 48 hours of life) oropharyngeal administration of mother's own fresh or frozen/thawed colostrum can reduce rates of NEC, late-onset invasive infection, and/or mortality in preterm infants compared with controls. To assess trials for evidence of safety and harm (e.g. aspiration pneumonia). To compare effects of early oropharyngeal colostrum (OPC) versus no OPC, placebo, late OPC, and nasogastric colostrum. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to August 2017), Embase (1980 to August 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to August 2017). We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and recently completed trials (clinicaltrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Trials Registry (www.whoint/ictrp/search/en/), and the ISRCTN Registry), conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We performed the last search in August 2017. We contacted trial investigators regarding unpublished studies and data. We searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing early administration of oropharyngeal colostrum (OPC) versus sham administration of water, oral formula, or donor breast milk, or versus no intervention. We also searched for studies comparing early OPC versus early nasogastric or nasojejunal administration of colostrum. We considered only trials that included preterm infants at < 37 weeks' gestation. We did not limit the review to any particular region or language. Two review authors independently screened retrieved articles for inclusion and independently conducted data extraction, data analysis, and assessments of 'Risk of bias' and quality of evidence. We graded evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We contacted study authors for additional information or clarification when necessary. We included six studies that compared early oropharyngeal colostrum versus water, saline, placebo, or donor, or versus no intervention, enrolling 335 preterm infants with gestational ages ranging from 25 to 32 weeks' gestation and birth weights of 410 to 2500 grams. Researchers found no significant differences between OPC and control for primary outcomes - incidence of NEC (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 4.02; six studies, 335 infants; P = 0.51; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), incidence of late-onset infection (typical RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.33; six studies, 335 infants; P = 0.50; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), and death before hospital discharge (typical RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.71; six studies, 335 infants; P = 0.51; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, meta-analysis showed no difference in length of hospital stay between OPC and control groups (mean difference (MD) 0.81, 95% CI -5.87 to 7.5; four studies, 293 infants; P = 0.65; I² = 49%). Days to full enteral feeds were reduced in the OPC group with MD of -2.58 days (95% CI -4.01 to -1.14; six studies, 335 infants; P = 0.0004; I² = 28%; very low-quality evidence).The effect of OPC was uncertain because of small sample sizes and imprecision in study results (very low-quality evidence).No adverse effects were associated with OPC; however, data on adverse effects were insufficient, and no numerical data were available from the included studies.Overall the quality of included studies was low to very low across all outcomes. We downgraded GRADE outcomes because of concerns about allocation concealment and blinding, reporting bias, small sample sizes with few events, and wide confidence intervals. Large, well-designed trials would be required to evaluate more precisely and reliably the effects of oropharyngeal colostrum on important outcomes for preterm infants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 18 25%
Student > Bachelor 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 36%
Unspecified 17 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 10 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 26 October 2018.
All research outputs
#428,176
of 12,819,898 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,389
of 10,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,353
of 262,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,819,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,432 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 262,260 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.