MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4239339630 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004865.pub2

Early versus late erythropoietin for preventing red blood cell transfusion in preterm and/or low birth weight infants

2006· reference-entry· en· W4239339630 sur OpenAlexaff
Sanjay M Aher, Arne Ohlsson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereference-entry
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryLow birth weightErythropoietinPediatricsRelative riskConfidence intervalMeta-analysisNumber needed to treatBirth weightBlood transfusionPregnancyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hematocrit falls after birth in preterm infants due to physiological factors and frequent blood letting. Low plasma levels of erythropoietin (EPO) in preterm infants provide a rationale for the use of EPO to prevent or treat anaemia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of early (before 8 days after birth) versus late (between 8 - 28 days after birth) initiation of EPO in reducing red blood cell transfusions in preterm and/or low birth weight infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2006) was searched. Electronic and manual searches were conducted in November 2005 of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, personal files, bibliographies of identified trials and abstracts by the Pediatric Academic Societies' and the European Society of Pediatric Research Meetings published in Pediatric Research. DESIGN: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials. POPULATION: Preterm (< 37 weeks gestational age) or low birth weight infants (< 2500 g) less than eight days of age. INTERVENTION: Early initiation of EPO (initiated at < 8 days of age) vs. late initiation of EPO (initiated at 8 - 28 days of age). Outcomes; At least one of the following outcomes were reported: Use of one or more red blood cell transfusions; Total volume (ml/kg) of blood transfused per infant; Number of transfusions per infant; Number of donors to whom the infant was exposed; Mortality during initial hospital stay (all causes); and common outcomes associated with preterm birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were followed independently by the authors to assess study quality and report outcomes. Weighted treatment effects, calculated using RevMan 4.2.8 included typical relative risk (RR), typical risk difference (RD), number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB), number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) and mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A fixed effect model was used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity tests including the I-squared (I(2)) test were performed to assess the appropriateness of pooling the data. MAIN RESULTS: Two high quality randomized double-blind controlled studies enrolling 262 infants were identified (Donato 2000; Maier 2002). Both studies used well defined, but not identical, criteria for blood transfusions. Between 14 and 32% of the enrolled infants had received blood transfusions prior to study entry. A non-significant reduction in the 'use one or more red blood cell transfusions' [typical RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.78, 1.06); typical RD - 0.07 (95% CI -0.18, 0.04)] favouring early EPO was noted. Both studies (n = 262) reported on "number of transfusions per infant"; early EPO administration resulted in a non-significant reduction compared to late EPO [typical WMD - 0.32 (95% CI -0.92, 0.29)]. There was no significant reduction in total volume of blood transfused per infant or in the number of donors to whom the infant was exposed. Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (all stages) was assessed in 191 infants. Early EPO led to a significant increase in the risk of ROP [(typical RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.05, 1.86); typical RD 0.16 (95% CI 0.03, 0.29); NNTH 6 (95% CI 3 -33)]. There was statistically significant heterogeneity for this outcome. Both studies (n = 191) reported on ROP stage > 3. No statistically significant increase in risk was noted [typical RR 1.56 (95% CI 0.71, 3.41); typical RD was 0.05 (95% CI - 0.04, 0.14)]. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity for this outcome for either RR or for RD. No other important favourable or adverse neonatal outcomes or side effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of early EPO did not significantly reduce the primary outcome of "use of one or more red blood cell transfusions", or "number of transfusions per infant" compared to late EPO administration. Currently there is lack of evidence that early EPO vs. late EPO confers any substantial benefits with regard to any donor blood exposure as a large proportion (14 - 30 %) of infants enrolled in these studies were exposed to donor blood prior to study entry. The finding of a statistically significant increased risk of ROP (any grade) and a similar trend for ROP stage > 3 with early EPO treatment is of great concern. No further studies comparing early vs. late administration of EPO are warranted.

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)0,005
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: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · 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'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

Citations64
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207