Glycerin Enemas and Suppositories in Premature Infants: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Premature infants are often given glycerin enemas or suppositories to facilitate meconium evacuation and transition to enteral feeding. The purpose of this study was to assess the available evidence for this treatment strategy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Central, and trial registries for randomized controlled trials of premature infants treated with glycerin enemas or suppositories. Data were extracted in duplicate and meta-analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: We identified 185 premature infants treated prophylactically with glycerin enemas in one trial (n = 81) and suppositories in two other trials (n = 104). All infants were less than 32 weeks gestation and had no congenital malformations. Treatment was associated with earlier initiation of stooling in one trial (2 vs 4 days, P = .02) and a trend towards earlier meconium evacuation in another (6.5 vs 9 days, P = .11). Meta-analysis demonstrated no effect on transition to enteral feeding (0.7 days faster, P = .43) or mortality (P = 0.50). There were no reports of rectal bleeding or perforation but there was a trend towards increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis with glycerin enemas or suppositories (risk ratio = 2.72, P = .13). These three trials are underpowered and affected by one or more major methodological issues. As a result, the quality of evidence is low to very low. Three other trials are underway. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use glycerin enemas or suppositories in premature infants in inconclusive. Meta-analyzed data suggest that treatment may be associated with increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis. Careful monitoring of ongoing trials is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".