↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of neonatal treatment intensity scores and their potential application in low-resource setting hospitals for predicting mortality, morbidity and estimating resource use

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
A systematic review of neonatal treatment intensity scores and their potential application in low-resource setting hospitals for predicting mortality, morbidity and estimating resource use
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0649-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jalemba Aluvaala, Gary S. Collins, Michuki Maina, James A. Berkley, Mike English

Abstract

Treatment intensity scores can predict mortality and estimate resource use. They may therefore be of interest for essential neonatal care in low resource settings where neonatal mortality remains high. We sought to systematically review neonatal treatment intensity scores to (1) assess the level of evidence on predictive performance in predicting clinical outcomes and estimating resource utilisation and (2) assess the applicability of the identified models to decision making for neonatal care in low resource settings. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL, Global Health Library (Global index, WHO) and Google Scholar to identify studies published up until 21 December 2016. Included were all articles that used treatments as predictors in neonatal models. Individual studies were appraised using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). In addition, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used as a guiding framework to assess certainty in the evidence for predicting outcomes across studies. Three thousand two hundred forty-nine articles were screened, of which ten articles were included in the review. All of the studies were conducted in neonatal intensive care units with sample sizes ranging from 22 to 9978, with a median of 163. Two articles reported model development, while eight reported external application of existing models to new populations. Meta-analysis was not possible due heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of the identified studies. Discrimination as assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic curve was reported for in-hospital mortality, median 0.84 (range 0.75-0.96, three studies), early adverse outcome and late adverse outcome (0.78 and 0.59, respectively, one study). Existing neonatal treatment intensity models show promise in predicting mortality and morbidity. There is however low certainty in the evidence on their performance in essential neonatal care in low resource settings as all studies had methodological limitations and were conducted in intensive care. The approach may however be developed further for low resource settings like Kenya because treatment data may be easier to obtain compared to measures of physiological status. PROSPERO CRD42016034205.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 26 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 27 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,542,312
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,207
of 2,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,555
of 441,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 441,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.