MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surfactant for meconium aspiration syndrome in full term/near term infants

2007· review· en· W1623018470 on OpenAlexaff
Amr I El Shahed, Peter A. Dargaville, Arne Ohlsson, Roger F. Soll

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeconium aspiration syndromeMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMeconiumRespiratory distressCochrane LibraryRelative riskPneumothoraxClinical trialRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPediatricsMechanical ventilationIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surfactant replacement therapy has been proven beneficial in the prevention and treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). The deficiency of surfactant or surfactant dysfunction may contribute to respiratory failure in a broader group of disorders, including meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of surfactant administration in the treatment of term/near-term infants with MAS. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were made using The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE and EMBASE (1985 to December 2006), previous reviews including cross-references, abstracts, conference and symposia proceedings, expert informants, and journal hand searching. No language restrictions were applied. Authors were directly contacted to provide additional data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which evaluated the effect of surfactant administration in term infants with meconium aspiration syndrome are included in the analyses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), pneumothorax, duration of assisted ventilation, duration of supplemental oxygen, intraventricular haemorrhage (any grade and severe IVH), and chronic lung disease, and were excerpted from the reports of the clinical trails by the review authors. Data analyses were done in accordance with the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: Four randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of 4 trials enrolling 326 infants showed no statistically significant effect on mortality (typical relative risk 0.98 (95% CI 0.41, 2.39), typical risk difference 0.00 (95% CI -0.05, 0.05). The risk of requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was significantly reduced in a meta-analysis of two trials (n = 208); (typical relative risk 0.64, 95% CI 0.46, 0.91; typical risk difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.30, -0.04); number needed to treat to benefit 6 (95% CI 3, 25). One trial (n = 40) reported a statistically significant reduction in the length of hospital stay [mean difference - 8 days (95% CI -14, -3 days)]. There were no statistically significant reductions in any other outcomes studied (duration of assisted ventilation, duration of supplemental oxygen, pneumothorax, pulmonary interstitial emphysema, air leaks, chronic lung disease, need for oxygen at discharge or intraventricular haemorrhage). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In infants with MAS, surfactant administration may reduce the severity of respiratory illness and decrease the number of infants with progressive respiratory failure requiring support with ECMO. The relative efficacy of surfactant therapy compared to, or in conjunction with, other approaches to treatment including inhaled nitric oxide, liquid ventilation, surfactant lavage and high frequency ventilation remains to be tested.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.006

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations119
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207