↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Tactile Stimulation on Termination and Prevention of Apnea of Prematurity: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Effect of Tactile Stimulation on Termination and Prevention of Apnea of Prematurity: A Systematic Review
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie J. E. Cramer, Janneke Dekker, Jenny Dankelman, Steffen C. Pauws, Stuart B. Hooper, Arjan B. te Pas

Abstract

Apnea of prematurity (AOP) is one of the most common diagnoses in preterm infants. Severe and recurrent apneas are associated with cerebral injury and adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Despite pharmacotherapy and respiratory support to prevent apneas, a proportion of infants continue to have apneas and often need tactile stimulation, mask, and bag ventilation and/or extra oxygen. The duration of the apnea and the concomitant hypoxia and bradycardia depends on the response time of the nurse. We systematically reviewed the literature with the aim of providing an overview of what is known about the effect of manual and mechanical tactile stimulation on AOP. Tactile stimulation, manual or mechanical, has been shown to shorten the duration of apnea, hypoxia, and or bradycardia or even prevent an apnea. Automated stimulation, using closed-loop pulsating or vibrating systems, has been shown to be effective in terminating apneas, but data are scarce. Several studies used continuous mechanical stimulation, with pulsating, vibrating, or oscillating stimuli, to prevent apneas, but the reported effect varied. More studies are needed to confirm whether automated stimulation using a closed loop is more effective than manual stimulation, how and where the automated stimulation should be performed and the potential side effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Lecturer 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 22 31%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Engineering 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,669,462
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#607
of 6,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,419
of 331,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#22
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 331,404 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.