MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2040527985 · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-3456

Time for Pressure Tactics

2007· letter· en· W2040527985 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Keith J. Barrington

Notice bibliographique

RevuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Établissements canadiensRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Therapies for hypotension in very preterm infants are among the most common interventions given to these fragile patients. The proportion of very low birth weight infants who receive potent and potentially toxic interventions varies dramatically from one NICU to another.1A prospective cohort study of extremely low gestational age newborns (the ELGAN study), results of which are published in this issue of Pediatrics,2 shows even greater variation in interventions for hypotension than previously reported. The proportion of infants under 28 weeks' gestation who were treated ranged from 32% to 98%, and the proportion that received either hydrocortisone or vasopressor agents ranged from 8% to 86%. The investigators examined the reasons for these variations and were unable to show that hypotension was more frequent or severe in the high-intervention centers. Indeed, the only consistent factor associated with intervention was the NICU in which the infant was. It is remarkable that in 7 of the participating NICUs, <10% of the infants under 28 weeks' gestation were considered to have a good enough cardiovascular status to avoid treatment.These enormous variations in practice reflect the differences between the criteria for treatment and the favorite interventions reported in a survey of neonatologists.3 The most common criterion was a mean arterial pressure in mmHg less than the gestational age in weeks (either with or without clinical signs), which is a simplistic threshold that ignores the well-described spontaneous increase in normal blood pressure that occurs in the first few days of life and has no empirical support in the literature. More than 50% of very immature infants will have a blood pressure below this threshold on the first day of life.4 Using such a criterion is also inconsistent with the well-described lack of association of blood pressure with systemic blood flow.5 Therefore, it is very evident, unfortunately, that we truly have no idea which preterm newborns might benefit from cardiovascular support6 or what interventions are effective in improving clinical outcomes.Most neonatologists start treatment for hypotension with at least 1 fluid bolus and then commence dopamine.3 Additional evidence of the uncertainty surrounding hypotension treatment is shown by the fact that the starting dose of dopamine given by some individuals is the same as the maximum dose used by others; the same pattern is seen for dobutamine, epinephrine, volume of saline given as a fluid bolus, and (dramatically so) steroids (hydrocortisone starting dose: 0.1–5 mg/kg; maximum: 0.5–15 mg/kg).Unfortunately, the authors of this study have not provided data to indicate if the described variations in practice are associated with variations in clinically important outcomes, but other data suggest that such associations do exist. The Canadian neonatal network, for example, has shown an odds of developing severe intraventricular hemorrhage that varied >10-fold between units even after adjusting for severity of illness and demographic factors known to affect risk.7 That study suggested that pressor treatment of hypotension was associated with a worse outcome in preterm infants; this remains true even when the severity of hypotension is accounted for.4 Previous observational data have also shown an increase in intraventricular hemorrhage8 and mortality9 in preterm infants that is associated with fluid-bolus administration.Eighty-two percent of the infants in the ELGAN study received treatment for hypotension; if this is generally true in the United States (where ∼0.4% of the 4.1 million births [ie, ∼16000 infants] are born at extremely low gestational age annually), then >13000 very high-risk infants are receiving treatment of unknown efficacy and toxicity for uncertain indications each year. Similar dramatic figures could be calculated for other countries.A critical review of the literature reveals that there have never been randomized trials: A recent National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/Food and Drug Administration–sponsored conference6 suggested models for prospective trials to address these areas of ignorance. The details of the trials suggested may be debatable, but the importance of actually performing them surely is not.We cannot let this ignorance continue.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,228
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,762

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2280,081

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,387
Écart entre enseignants0,332 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePEDIATRICSMême sujetNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchTravaux en français237 207