↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates: a systematic review of prognostic studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, April 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
319 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
Risk factors for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates: a systematic review of prognostic studies
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12887-017-0847-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noor Samuels, Rob A. van de Graaf, Rogier C. J. de Jonge, Irwin K. M. Reiss, Marijn J. Vermeulen

Abstract

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a severe multifactorial disease in preterm neonates associated with high morbidity and mortality. Better insight into prognostic values of the many reported factors associated with NEC is needed to enable identification of neonates at risk for NEC. The aim was to systematically review the literature to identify independent risk factors for NEC from the literature. Medline, Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed and Google Scholar were searched systematically for cohort studies reporting prognostic factors for NEC in neonates using multivariable analysis. Studies were scored with the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS). From 5154 initial hits, 14 prognostic studies were included, with various designs. Study quality was rated high in three studies, moderate or low in the 11 others. Significant prognostic factors for NEC reported in at least two studies were: low birth weight, small for gestational age, low gestational age, assisted ventilation, premature rupture of membranes, black ethnicity, sepsis, outborn, hypotension (all increased risk), surfactant therapy (conflicting results) and cesarean section (lower risk). Meta-analysis was considered not feasible. High quality studies on prognostic factors for NEC are rare. Several prognostic factors, that are not necessarily causal, are associated with NEC. High quality prognostic research is necessary to establish the predictive values of these factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 319 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 318 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 15%
Student > Bachelor 36 11%
Researcher 31 10%
Student > Postgraduate 30 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Other 58 18%
Unknown 96 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 147 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 17 5%
Unknown 105 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,809,265
of 24,037,100 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#401
of 3,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,368
of 312,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#7
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,037,100 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 312,191 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.