Does risk-based coagulation screening predict intraventricular haemorrhage in extreme premature infants?
Blood Coagulation and Fibrinolysis, ISSN: 0957-5235, Vol: 23, Issue: 6, Page: 532-536
2012
- 27Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations27
- Citation Indexes27
- 27
- CrossRef14
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
Article Description
BACKGROUND: Intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) continues to be a significant contributor to neonatal morbidity and mortality, especially in the extremely premature population (<26 weeks). The aims of the study were to test the hypothesis that risk-based coagulopathy screening could identify infants at risk of severe IVH/mortality, and whether preterm infants born at less than 26 weeks of gestation who received early (within first 48h) fresh frozen plasma (FFP) had a lower incidence of IVH than those who did not. METHOD: Chart review of preterm infants born less than 26-week gestation was conducted. The study compared two cohorts of infants who either had 'early' risk-based coagulopathy screening (within first 48h, n=47) or 'late' screening (n=55). RESULTS: Baseline and clinical characteristics of the two cohorts were similar. 'Early' coagulopathy screening predicted infants at risk of severe IVH [relative risk (RR) 2.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-5.67, P<0.01] but not mortality (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.79-1.94). FFP was administered significantly more in the 'early' screened cohort (P<0.001); however, the incidence of IVH was similar in those who received early FFP administration than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: 'Early' risk-based coagulopathy screening may identify preterm infants at risk of severe IVH; however, the study failed to show any benefit of early treatment of a coagulopathy with FFP in a small but high-risk population. © 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84865469217&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/mbc.0b013e3283551145; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22627584; https://journals.lww.com/00001721-201209000-00011; http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00001721-201209000-00011; https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/mbc.0b013e3283551145; https://insights.ovid.com/article/00001721-201209000-00011
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know