↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic oral betamimetics for reducing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Prophylactic oral betamimetics for reducing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004733.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Waralak Yamasmit, Surasith Chaithongwongwatthana, Jorge E Tolosa, Sompop Limpongsanurak, Leonardo Pereira, Pisake Lumbiganon

Abstract

Twin pregnancies are associated with a high risk of neonatal mortality and morbidity due to an increased rate of preterm birth. Betamimetics can decrease contraction frequency or delay preterm birth in singleton pregnancies by 24 to 48 hours. The efficacy of oral betamimetics in women with a twin pregnancy is unproven. To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic oral betamimetics for the prevention of preterm labour and birth for women with twin pregnancies. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (21 September 2015), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 July 2015), EMBASE (January 1985 to 31 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials in twin pregnancies comparing oral betamimetics with placebo or any intervention with the specific aim of preventing preterm birth. Quasi-randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Overall, the quality of evidence is low for the primary outcomes. All of the included trials had small numbers of participants and few events. Preterm birth, the most important primary outcome, had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect.Six trials (374 twin pregnancies) were included, but only five trials (344 twin pregnancies) contributed data. All trials compared oral betamimetics with placebo.Betamimetics reduced the incidence of preterm labour (two trials, 194 twin pregnancies, risk ratio (RR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.78; low quality evidence). However, betamimetics did not reduce prelabour rupture of membranes (one trial, 144 twin pregnancies, RR 1.42; 95% CI 0.42 to 4.82; low quality evidence), preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (four trials, 276 twin pregnancies, RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.10; low quality evidence), or less than 34 weeks' gestation (one trial, 144 twin pregnancies, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.50; low quality evidence). Mean neonatal birthweight in the betamimetic group was significantly higher than in the placebo group (three trials, 478 neonates, mean difference 111.22 g; 95% CI 22.21 to 200.24). Nevertheless, there was no evidence of an effect of betamimetics in reduction of low birthweight (two trials, 366 neonates, average RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.85, random-effects), or small-for-gestational age neonates (two trials, 178 neonates, average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.99, random-effects). Two trials showed that betamimetics significantly reduced the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome (388 neonates, RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.77), but the difference was not significant when the analysis was adjusted to account for the non-independence of twins (194 twins, RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.11 to 1.16). Three trials showed no evidence of an effect of betamimetics in reducing neonatal mortality, either with the unadjusted analysis, assuming twins are completely independent of each other (452 neonates, average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.15 to 5.37, random-effects), or in the adjusted analysis, assuming non-independence of twins (226 twins, average RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.38, random-effects). A maternal death was reported in one trial without a significant difference between the groups (144 women, RR 2.84; 95% CI 0.12 to 68.57). There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of prophylactic oral betamimetics for preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy.

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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 5%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 27 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 32 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 05 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,094,614
of 16,540,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,954
of 11,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,358
of 373,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,540,864 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 11,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. 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 373,090 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 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 63% of its contemporaries.