↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in children and adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in children and adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002787.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabienne Gebistorf, Oliver Karam, Jørn Wetterslev, Arash Afshari

Abstract

Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and mostly acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are critical conditions. AHRF results from several systemic conditions and is associated with high mortality and morbidity in individuals of all ages. Inhaled nitric oxide (INO) has been used to improve oxygenation, but its role remains controversial. This Cochrane review was originally published in 2003, and has been updated in 2010 and 2016. The primary objective was to examine the effects of administration of inhaled nitric oxide on mortality in adults and children with ARDS. Secondary objectives were to examine secondary outcomes such as pulmonary bleeding events, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, etc. We conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examined the role of bias and applied trial sequential analyses (TSAs) to examine the level of evidence. In this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 11); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, to 18 November 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP, to 18 November 2015), CAB, BIOSIS and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We handsearched the reference lists of the newest reviews and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception until 18 November 2015. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We performed several subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of INO in adults and children and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We presented pooled estimates of the effects of interventions as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. Our primary objective was to assess effects of INO on mortality. We found no statistically significant effects of INO on longest follow-up mortality: 250/654 deaths (38.2%) in the INO group compared with 221/589 deaths (37.5%) in the control group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.19; I² statistic = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We found no statistically significant effects of INO on mortality at 28 days: 202/587 deaths (34.4%) in the INO group compared with 166/518 deaths (32.0%) in the control group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.27; I² statistic = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). In children, there was no statistically significant effects of INO on mortality: 25/89 deaths (28.1%) in the INO group compared with 34/96 deaths (35.4%) in the control group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.18; I² statistic = 22%; moderate quality of evidence).Our secondary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of INO. For partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), we found significant improvement at 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 15.91, 95% CI 8.25 to 23.56; I² statistic = 25%; 11 trials, 614 participants; moderate quality of evidence). For the oxygenation index, we noted significant improvement at 24 hours (MD -2.31, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.89; I² statistic = 0%; five trials, 368 participants; moderate quality of evidence). For ventilator-free days, the difference was not statistically significant (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.82 to 0.69; I² statistic = 0%; five trials, 804 participants; high quality of evidence). There was a statistically significant increase in renal failure in the INO groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.16; I² statistic = 0%; high quality of evidence). Evidence is insufficient to support INO in any category of critically ill patients with AHRF. Inhaled nitric oxide results in a transient improvement in oxygenation but does not reduce mortality and may be harmful, as it seems to increase renal impairment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 197 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 17%
Student > Master 29 14%
Other 22 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 44 22%
Unknown 33 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 <1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 40 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,504,421
of 14,493,631 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,094
of 10,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,684
of 262,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,493,631 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,983 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 262,730 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 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 57% of its contemporaries.