↓ Skip to main content

Frequency of endotracheal suctioning for the prevention of respiratory morbidity in ventilated newborns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Frequency of endotracheal suctioning for the prevention of respiratory morbidity in ventilated newborns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011493.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Bruschettini, Simona Zappettini, Lorenzo Moja, Maria Grazia Calevo

Abstract

Endotracheal suctioning consists of the mechanical aspiration of pulmonary secretions from the endotracheal tube (ETT) to prevent obstruction. The optimal frequency of ETT suctioning has not been defined. To determine the effect of specific ordered frequency of ETT suctioning ('as scheduled') versus ETT suctioning only in case of indications ('as needed') and of more frequent ETT suctioning versus less frequent ETT suctioning on respiratory morbidity in ventilated newborns. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 31 October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 31 October 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 31 October 2015). We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. Randomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster randomized controlled trials comparing different strategies regarding the frequency of ETT suctioning of newborn infants receiving ventilator support. We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome was bronchopulmonary dysplasia or chronic lung disease. We identified one randomized controlled study recruiting 97 low birthweight infants that met the inclusion criteria. The study was conducted in the UK in 1987 and 1988. Randomized infants received ETT suctioning every six or 12 hours during the first three days of life. The quality of reporting was limited and we rated the trial at high risk of bias. Furthermore, the trial lacked adequate power. There were no statistically significant differences in any of reported outcomes: bronchopulmonary dysplasia (defined as oxygen at more than 30 days; risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.20); incidence of pneumothorax (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.05); intraventricular hemorrhage (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.85); neonatal death (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.37); and time on ventilation (median time 39 hours in the 12-hourly group and 28 hours in the six-hourly group; RD not applicable for this outcome as mean and standard deviation were not reported). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable as only one study was included. There was insufficient evidence to identify the ideal frequency of ETT suctioning in ventilated neonates. Future research should focus on the effects in the very preterm newborns, that is, the most vulnerable population as concerns the risk of both lung and brain damage. Assessment should include the cases of prolonged ventilation, when more abundant, dense secretions are common. Clinical trials might include comparisons between 'as-scheduled' versus 'as-needed' endotracheal suctioning, that is, based on specific indications, as well frequent versus less frequent suctioning schedules.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 35 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 13 34%
Student > Master 11 29%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Other 18 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 74%
Unspecified 15 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#921,745
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,869
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,748
of 267,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#71
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 267,995 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 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 60% of its contemporaries.