Does the use of glycerin laxatives decrease feeding intolerance in preterm infants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glycerin laxatives are often prescribed in the neonatal population for meconium evacuation and to promote enteral feeding. However, the literature regarding their effectiveness has not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of glycerin enema or suppository in preventing feeding intolerance in preterm infants at ≤32 weeks' gestational age or weighing ≤1500 g at birth. METHODS: The Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated glycerin enemas/suppositories for feeding intolerance. Using the Evidence Evaluation Worksheet adapted from the American Heart Association's International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, eligible studies were scored for quality, level of evidence and direction of support. RESULTS: Two clinical studies that evaluated meconium evacuation and feeding intolerance were included. One study showed no difference in the time to complete meconium evacuation or establishment of full enteral feeds, while the other showed that the times to first meconium passage and full enteral feeding were significantly shorter, and the rate of sepsis was lower in the glycerin enema group. CONCLUSION: The evidence regarding the effectiveness of glycerin laxatives for improving feeding tolerance is inconclusive in infants at ≤32 weeks' gestational age or weighing ≤1500 g at birth.
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".