↓ Skip to main content

The Antenatal Corticosteroids Trial (ACT): a secondary analysis to explore site differences in a multi-country trial

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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): a secondary analysis to explore site differences in a multi-country trial
Published in
Reproductive Health, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0179-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Klein, Elizabeth M. McClure, Daniela Colaci, Vanessa Thorsten, Patricia L. Hibberd, Fabian Esamai, Ana Garces, Archana Patel, Sarah Saleem, Omrana Pasha, Elwyn Chomba, Waldemar A. Carlo, Nancy F. Krebs, Shivaprasad Goudar, Richard J. Derman, Edward A Liechty, Marion Koso-Thomas, Pierre M. Buekens, José M. Belizán, Robert L. Goldenberg, Fernando Althabe

Abstract

The Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial (ACT) 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 had no overall impact on neonatal mortality in the targeted <5(th) percentile birth weight infants. Being in the intervention clusters was also associated with an overall increase in neonatal deaths. We sought to explore plausible pathways through which this intervention increased neonatal mortality. We conducted secondary analyses to assess site differences in outcome and potential explanations for the differences in outcomes if found. By site, and in the intervention and control clusters, we evaluated characteristics of the mothers and care systems, the proportion of the <5(th) percentile infants and the overall population that received ACS, the rates of possible severe bacterial infection (pSBI), determined from clinical signs, and neonatal mortality rates. There were substantial differences between the sites in both participant and health system characteristics, with Guatemala and Argentina generally having the highest levels of care. In some sites there were substantial differences in the health system characteristics between the intervention and control clusters. The increase in ACS in the intervention clusters was similar among the sites. While overall, there was no difference in neonatal mortality among <5(th) percentile births between the intervention and control clusters, Guatemala and Pakistan both had significant reductions in neonatal mortality in the <5(th) percentile infants in the intervention clusters. The improvement in neonatal mortality in the Guatemalan site in the <5(th) percentile infants was associated with a higher level of care at the site and an improvement in care in the intervention clusters. There was a significant increase overall in neonatal mortality in the intervention clusters compared to the control. Across sites, this increase in neonatal mortality was statistically significant and most apparent in the African sites. This increase in neonatal mortality was accompanied by a significant increase in pSBI in the African sites. The improvement in neonatal mortality in the Guatemalan site in the <5(th) percentile infants was associated with a higher level of care and an improvement in care in the intervention clusters. The increase in neonatal mortality in the intervention clusters across all sites was largely driven by the poorer outcomes in the African sites, which also had an increase in pSBI in the intervention clusters. We emphasize that these results come from secondary analyses. Additional prospective studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of ACS on neonatal health in low resource settings. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01084096).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 8 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 52 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 54 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#13,983,198
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#1,015
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,859
of 334,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 334,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.