↓ Skip to main content

Early treatment versus expectative management of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants: a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial in Europe (BeNeDuctus trial)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, August 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Early treatment versus expectative management of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants: a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial in Europe (BeNeDuctus trial)
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12887-018-1215-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Hundscheid, Wes Onland, Bart van Overmeire, Peter Dijk, Anton H. L. C. van Kaam, Koen P. Dijkman, Elisabeth M. W. Kooi, Eduardo Villamor, André A. Kroon, Remco Visser, Daniel C. Vijlbrief, Susanne M. de Tollenaer, Filip Cools, David van Laere, Anne-Britt Johansson, Catheline Hocq, Alexandra Zecic, Eddy Adang, Rogier Donders, Willem de Vries, Arno F. J. van Heijst, Willem P. de Boode

Abstract

Much controversy exists about the optimal management of a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants, especially in those born at a gestational age (GA) less than 28 weeks. No causal relationship has been proven between a (haemodynamically significant) PDA and neonatal complications related to pulmonary hyperperfusion and/or systemic hypoperfusion. Although studies show conflicting results, a common understanding is that medical or surgical treatment of a PDA does not seem to reduce the risk of major neonatal morbidities and mortality. As the PDA might have closed spontaneously, treated children are potentially exposed to iatrogenic adverse effects. A conservative approach is gaining interest worldwide, although convincing evidence to support its use is lacking. This multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial is conducted in neonatal intensive care units. The study population consists of preterm infants (GA < 28 weeks) with an echocardiographic-confirmed PDA with a transductal diameter > 1.5 mm. Early treatment (between 24 and 72 h postnatal age) with the cyclooxygenase inhibitor (COXi) ibuprofen (IBU) is compared with an expectative management (no intervention intended to close a PDA). The primary outcome is the composite of mortality, and/or necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) Bell stage ≥ IIa, and/or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) defined as the need for supplemental oxygen, all at a postmenstrual age (PMA) of 36 weeks. Secondary outcome parameters are short term sequelae of cardiovascular failure, comorbidity and adverse events assessed during hospitalization and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome assessed at a corrected age of 2 years. Consequences regarding health economics are evaluated by cost effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis. As a conservative approach is gaining interest, we investigate whether in preterm infants, born at a GA less than 28 weeks, with a PDA an expectative management is non-inferior to early treatment with IBU regarding to the composite outcome of mortality and/or NEC and/or BPD at a PMA of 36 weeks. This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Register NTR5479 (registered on 19 October 2015), the registry sponsored by the United States National Library of Medicine Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02884219 (registered May 2016) and the European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT 2017-001376-28 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 10%
Student > Master 18 10%
Other 15 8%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 47 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 52 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 01 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,510,256
of 25,337,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#160
of 3,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,742
of 337,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#9
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,337,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 337,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.