↓ Skip to main content

Epinephrine for transient tachypnea of the newborn

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Epinephrine for transient tachypnea of the newborn
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011877.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Moresco, Maria Grazia Calevo, Federica Baldi, Amnon Cohen, Matteo Bruschettini

Abstract

Transient tachypnea of the newborn is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Although transient tachypnea of the newborn is usually a self limited condition, it is associated with wheezing syndromes in late childhood. The rationale for the use of epinephrine (adrenaline) for transient tachypnea of the newborn is based on studies showing that β-agonists can accelerate the rate of alveolar fluid clearance. To assess whether epinephrine compared to placebo, no treatment or any other drugs (excluding salbutamol) is effective and safe in the treatment of transient tachypnea of the newborn in infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1996 to March 2016), EMBASE (1980 to March 2016) and CINAHL (1982 to March 2016). We applied no language restrictions. We searched the abstracts of the major congresses in the field (Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Pediatric Academic Societies) from 2000 to 2015. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and cluster trials comparing epinephrine versus placebo or no treatment or any other drugs administered to infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more and less than three days of age with transient tachypnea of the newborn. For the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, duration of oxygen therapy (hours), need for continuous positive airway pressure and need for mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review were duration of oxygen therapy (hours), need for continuous positive airway pressure and need for mechanical ventilation. One trial, which included 20 infants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study authors administered three doses of nebulized 2.25% racemic epinephrine or placebo. We found no differences between the two group in the duration of supplemental oxygen therapy (mean difference (MD) -6.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -54.80 to 41.60 hours) and need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.88; risk difference (RD) -0.07, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.32). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of initiation of oral feeding. The quality of the evidence was limited due to the imprecision of the estimates. At present there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of epinephrine in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 19 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,351,009
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,995
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,417
of 270,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 270,972 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.