↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic barbiturate use for the prevention of morbidity and mortality following perinatal asphyxia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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 barbiturate use for the prevention of morbidity and mortality following perinatal asphyxia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001240.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leslie Young, Marie Berg, Roger Soll

Abstract

Seizures are common following perinatal asphyxia and may exacerbate secondary neuronal injury. Barbiturate therapy has been used for infants with perinatal asphyxia in order to prevent seizures. However, barbiturate therapy may adversely affect neurodevelopment leading to concern regarding aggressive use in neonates. To determine the effect of administering prophylactic barbiturate therapy on death or neurodevelopmental disability in term and late preterm infants following perinatal asphyxia. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 30 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 30 November 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 30 November 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs. We included all RCTs or quasi-RCTs of prophylactic barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants without clinical or electroencephalographic evidence of seizures compared to controls following perinatal asphyxia. Three review authors independently selected, assessed the quality of, and extracted data from the included studies. We assessed methodologic quality and validity of studies without consideration of the results. The review authors independently extracted data and performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH). In this updated review, we identified nine RCTs of any barbiturate therapy in term and late preterm infants aged less than three days old with perinatal asphyxia without evidence of seizures. Eight of these studies compared prophylactic barbiturate therapy to conventional treatment (enrolling 439 infants) and one study compared barbiturate therapy to treatment with phenytoin (enrolling 17 infants). Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus conventional treatment: one small trial reported a decreased risk of death or severe neurodevelopmental disability for barbiturate therapy (phenobarbital) versus conventional treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; RD -0.55, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 4; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).Eight trials comparing prophylactic barbiturate therapy with conventional treatment following perinatal asphyxia demonstrated no significant impact on the risk of death (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05; 8 trials, 429 infants) (low quality evidence) and the one small trial noted above reported a significant decrease in the risk of severe neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92; RD -0.43, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; NNTB 2, 95% CI 1 to 8; 1 study, 31 infants) (very low quality evidence).A meta-analysis of the six trials reporting on seizures in the neonatal period demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in seizures in the prophylactic barbiturate group versus conventional treatment (typical RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81; typical RD -0.18, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.09; NNTB 5, 95% CI 4 to 11; 6 studies, 319 infants) (low quality evidence). There were similar results in subgroup analyses based on type of barbiturate and Sarnat score. Prophylactic barbiturate therapy versus other prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy: one study reported on prophylactic barbiturate versus prophylactic phenytoin. There was no significant difference in seizure activity in the neonatal period between the two study groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00; 1 trial, 17 infants). We found only low or very low quality evidence addressing the use of prophylactic barbiturates in infants with perinatal asphyxia. Although the administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy to infants following perinatal asphyxia did reduce the risk of seizures, there was no reduction seen in mortality and there were few data addressing long-term outcomes. The administration of prophylactic barbiturate therapy for late preterm and term infants in the immediate period following perinatal asphyxia cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice. If used at all, barbiturates should be reserved for the treatment of seizures. The results of the current review support the use of prophylactic barbiturate therapy as a promising area of research. Future studies should be of sufficient size and duration to detect clinically important reductions in mortality and severe neurodevelopmental disability and should be conducted in the context of the current standard of care, including the use of therapeutic hypothermia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 19 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 27 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 28 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,447,068
of 15,339,481 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,863
of 11,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,833
of 265,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,339,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 265,167 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 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 53% of its contemporaries.