↓ Skip to main content

Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008436.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chakrapani Vasudevan, Sam J Oddie, William McGuire

Abstract

Uncertainty exists regarding the management of newborn infants with a bloodstream infection and a central venous catheter in place. The central venous catheter may act as a nidus for infecting organisms and observational studies have suggested that early removal of the catheter is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection. However, since central venous catheters provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management also need to be considered. To determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters on morbidity and mortality in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), CINAHL (1982 to October 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infections. We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials. There are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 22%
Student > Master 14 20%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 15 22%

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 03 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,292,534
of 15,569,733 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,465
of 11,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,979
of 265,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,569,733 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 265,549 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 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 54% of its contemporaries.