MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4231116358 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000361.pub2

Intravenous immunoglobulin for preventing infection in preterm and/or low birth weight infants

2004· review· en· W4231116358 sur OpenAlexaff
Arne Ohlsson, Janet B. Lacy

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineGestational ageRandomized controlled trialBirth weightPlaceboLow birth weightPediatricsPopulationAntibodyCochrane LibraryGestationPregnancyImmunologyObstetricsInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial infections continue to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among preterm and/or low birth weight infants. Maternal transport of immunoglobulins to the fetus mainly occurs after 32 weeks gestation and endogenous synthesis does not begin until several months after birth. Administration of intravenous immunoglobulin provides IgG that can bind to cell surface receptors, provide opsonic activity, activate complement, promote antibody dependent cytotoxicity, and improve neutrophilic chemo luminescence. Intravenous immunoglobulin thus has the potential of preventing or altering the course of nosocomial infections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness/safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) administration (compared to placebo or no intervention) to preterm (< 37 weeks gestational age at birth) and/or low birth weight (LBW) (< 2500 g BW) infants in preventing nosocomial infections. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library Databases were searched in September 2003 using the keywords: immunoglobulin and infant-newborn and random allocation or controlled trial or randomized controlled trial (RCT). The reference lists of identified RCTs and personal files were searched. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: The criteria used to select studies for inclusion in this overview were: 1) DESIGN: RCTs in which administration of IVIG was compared to a control group that received a placebo or no intervention. 2) POPULATION: preterm (< 37 weeks gestational age) and/or LBW (<2500 g) infants. 3) INTERVENTION: IVIG for the prevention of bacterial/fungal infection during initial hospital stay (8 days or longer). (Studies that were primarily designed to assess the effect of IVIG on humoral immune markers were excluded as were studies in which the follow-up period was one week or less).4) At least one of the following outcomes was reported: sepsis, any serious infection, death from all causes, death from infection, length of hospital stay, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently abstracted information for each outcome reported in each study, and one researcher (AO) checked for any discrepancies and pooled the results. Relative risk (RR) and Risk Difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effects model are reported. When a statistically significant RD was found the number needed to treat (NNT) was also calculated with 95% CIs. The results include all accepted studies in which the outcome of interest was reported. Statistically significant between study heterogeneity was reported. The results of the inconsistency test (I squared) are also reported when statistically significant heterogeneity was found. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified in September 2003. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. These included approximately 5,000 preterm and/or LBW infants and reported on at least one of the outcomes of interest for this systematic review. When all studies were combined there was a statistically significant reduction (p = 0.02) in sepsis, RR [0.85 (95% CI 0.74, 0.98)] and RD [-0.03 (95% CI 0.00, -0.05)], NNT 33. There was statistically significant between-study heterogeneity (p = 0.02); I squared 54%. A statistically significant reduction was found for any serious infection, one or more episodes, when all studies were combined [RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.74, 0.92); RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.02, -0.06,); NNT 25 (95% CI, 16.7, 50). There was statistically significant between-study heterogeneity (p = 0.0006); I squared 50%. There were no statistically significant differences for mortality from all causes, mortality from infection, incidence of NEC, BPD and IVH or length of hospital stay. No major adverse effects of IVIG were reported in any of the studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: IVIG administration results in a 3% reduction in sepsis and a 4% reduction in any serious infection, one or more episodes, but is not associated with reductions in other important outcomes: sepsis, NEC, IVH, or length of hospital stay. Most importantly, IVIG administration does not have any significant effect on mortality from any cause or from infections. Prophylactic use of IVIG is not associated with any short term serious side effects. From a clinical perspective a 3-4% reduction in nosocomial infections without a reduction in mortality or other important clinical outcomes is of marginal importance.The decision to use prophylactic IVIG will depend on the costs and the values assigned to the clinical outcomes. There is no justification for further RCTs testing the efficacy of previously studied IVIG preparations to reduce nosocomial infections in preterm and/or LBW infants. The results of these meta-analyses should encourage basic scientists and clinicians to pursue other avenues to prevent nosocomial infections.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,063
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0160,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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 Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations99
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207