↓ Skip to main content

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in newborn infants

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 (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011106.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joke M Wielenga, Agnes van den Hoogen, Henriette A van Zanten, Onno Helder, Bas Bol, Bronagh Blackwood

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving intervention for critically ill newborn infants with respiratory failure admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Ventilating newborn infants can be challenging due to small tidal volumes, high breathing frequencies, and the use of uncuffed endotracheal tubes. Mechanical ventilation has several short-term, as well as long-term complications. To prevent complications, weaning from the ventilator is started as soon as possible. Weaning aims to support the transfer from full mechanical ventilation support to spontaneous breathing activity. To assess the efficacy of protocolized versus non-protocolized ventilator weaning for newborn infants in reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, the duration of weaning, and shortening the NICU and hospital length of stay. To determine efficacy in predefined subgroups including: gestational age and birth weight; type of protocol; and type of protocol delivery. To establish whether protocolized weaning is safe and clinically effective in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation without increasing the risk of adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE In-Process and other Non-Indexed Citations and OVID MEDLINE (1950 to 31 July 2015); CINAHL (1982 to 31 July 2015); EMBASE (1988 to 31 July 2015); and Web of Science (1990 to 15 July 2015). We did not restrict language of publication. We contacted authors of studies with a subgroup of newborn infants in their study, and experts in the field regarding this subject. In addition, we searched abstracts from conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, and reference lists of all identified studies for further relevant studies. Randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials that compared protocolized with non-protocolized ventilator weaning practices in newborn infants with a gestational age of 24 weeks or more, who were enrolled in the study before the postnatal age of 28 completed days after the expected date of birth. Four authors, in pairs, independently reviewed titles and abstracts identified by electronic searches. We retrieved full-text versions of potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded 1752 records. We removed duplicates (1062) and irrelevant studies (843). We did not find any randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials conducted on weaning from mechanical ventilation in newborn infants. Two randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria on type of study and type of intervention, but only included a proportion of newborns. The study authors could not provide data needed for subgroup analysis; we excluded both studies. Based on the results of this review, there is no evidence to support or refute the superiority or inferiority of weaning by protocol over non-protocol weaning on duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in newborn infants.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#826,866
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,630
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,658
of 265,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 177 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 93rd 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 79% 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 265,507 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 177 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 58% of its contemporaries.