MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhaled steroids for neonatal chronic lung disease

2010· review· en· W121481074 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Lister, Richard Iles, Ben Nj Shaw, Francine M. Ducharme

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryCochrane collaborationLung diseaseIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineLungPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a chronic disorder associated with prematurity. Systemic steroids induce at least a temporary improvement in respiratory function, but are associated with adverse side effects. Inhaled steroids have fewer side effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine if inhaled corticosteroids are effective in alleviating the morbidity of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) compared to placebo. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified randomised, controlled trials (RCT) within the Cochrane Database, references from retrieved trials, hand searches of journals and contact with pharmaceutical companies and experts in this field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials involving infants with chronic lung disease of prematurity and treated with inhaled steroids versus placebo were included. Patients receiving systemic corticosteroids were excluded. Co-interventions included antenatal systemic steroids, routine neonatal intensive care, ventilatory support, surfactant replacement therapy, diuretics and bronchodilators. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four of the seven included trials were of good methodological quality. There were five parallel-group trials in ventilated infants. These were comparable in terms of population, co-interventions and need for increased inspired oxygen concentration. They differed in terms of type, dose and duration (7-28 days) of inhaled steroids. Two cross-over trials were performed in non-ventilated patients. An update search was conducted in June 2002, which identified an additional excluded study. MAIN RESULTS: The inability to extubate during treatment was markedly reduced in infants treated with inhaled steroids; Peto Odds Ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.43. There was heterogeneity in this finding, however, with one study that contributed 30% of the total number of patients reporting no successful extubations in either treatment arm over one week. The risk of sepsis appeared similar between the two groups (N=3, OR=0.72, 95%CI: 0.21 to 2.43). The small number of trials precluded analysis to examine the effect of differences in drug, duration of therapy, delivery system, co-interventions, and disease severity. Reduced oxygen requirements were reported in one of the two trials performed in non-ventilated infants, but inadequate data reporting precluded pooling of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated infants with BPD, inhaled steroids administered for 1 to 4 weeks improved the rate of extubation with no apparent increase in the risk of sepsis. No firm conclusion could be derived with regard to the efficacy of inhaled steroids in non-ventilated infants.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207