↓ Skip to main content

The Antenatal Corticosteroids Trial (ACT)’s explanations for neonatal mortality - a secondary analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
The Antenatal Corticosteroids Trial (ACT)’s explanations for neonatal mortality - a secondary analysis
Published in
Reproductive Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0175-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Althabe, Vanessa Thorsten, Karen Klein, Elizabeth M. McClure, Patricia L. Hibberd, Robert L. Goldenberg, Waldemar A. Carlo, Ana Garces, Archana Patel, Omrana Pasha, Elwyn Chomba, Nancy F. Krebs, Shivaprasad Goudar, Richard J. Derman, Fabian Esamai, Edward A. Liechty, Nellie I. Hansen, Sreelatha Meleth, Dennis D. Wallace, Marion Koso-Thomas, Alan H. Jobe, Pierre M. Buekens, José M. Belizán

Abstract

The Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial assessed the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of a multifaceted intervention to increase the use of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) in mothers at risk of preterm birth at all levels of care in low and middle-income countries. The intervention effectively increased the use of ACS but was associated with an overall increase in neonatal deaths. We aimed to explore plausible pathways through which this intervention increased neonatal mortality. We conducted a series of secondary analyses to assess whether ACS or other components of the multifaceted intervention that might have affected the quality of care contributed to the increased mortality observed: 1) we compared the proportion of neonatal deaths receiving ACS between the intervention and control groups; 2) we compared the antenatal and delivery care process in all births between groups; 3) we compared the rates of possible severe bacterial infection between groups; and 4) we compared the frequency of factors related to ACS administration or maternal high risk conditions at administration between the babies who died and those who survived 28 days among all births in the intervention group identified as high risk for preterm birth and received ACS. The ACS exposure among the infants who died up to 28 days was 29 % in the intervention group compared to 6 % in controls. No substantial differences were observed in antenatal and delivery care process between groups. The risk of pSBI plus neonatal death was significantly increased in intervention clusters compared to controls (2.4 % vs. 2.0 %, adjusted RR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.04-1.30, p = 0.008], primarily for infants with birth weight at or above the 25(th) percentile. Regarding factors related to ACS administration, term infants who died were more likely to have mothers who received ACS within 7 days of delivery compared to those who survived 28 days (26.5 % vs 17.9 %, p = 0.014), and their mothers were more likely to have been identified as high risk for hypertension and less likely for signs of preterm labor. These results suggest that ACS more than other components of the intervention may have contributed to the overall increased neonatal mortality. ACS may have also been involved in the observed increased risk of neonatal infection and death. Further trials are urgently needed to clarify the effectiveness and safety of ACS on neonatal health in low resource settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 54 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Psychology 8 5%
Unspecified 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 60 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,138,596
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#1,208
of 1,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,910
of 335,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#28
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 335,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.