MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Erythromycin for the prevention and treatment of feeding intolerance in preterm infants

2008· review· en· W1666305429 on OpenAlexaff
Vibhuti Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErythromycinNecrotizing enterocolitisCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialGestational ageParenteral nutritionAdverse effectEnteral administrationInternal medicineLow birth weightPediatricsAntibioticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Functional immaturity of gastrointestinal motility predisposes preterm infants to feeding intolerance. Erythromycin is a motilin agonist that exerts its prokinetic effect by stimulating propagative contractile activity in the interdigestive phase. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of erythromycin in the prevention and treatment of feeding intolerance in preterm infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic literature search was performed according to the Cochrane Neonatal Collaborative Review Group search strategy. Randomized controlled trials of erythromycin in preterm infants to promote gastrointestinal motility were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 - December 2007), EMBASE (1980 - December 2007), CINAHL (1982 - December 2007), cross-references, abstracts, and journal hand searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: The initial selection criteria limited the review to studies using erythromycin at 3 - 12 mg/kg/day in preterm infants less than 36 weeks gestational age with feeding tolerance. However, a significant number of studies using erythromycin at a higher dose (> 12 mg/kg/day) or as prophylaxis for those at risk of feeding intolerance were identified. A post hoc decision was made to include these studies in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were categorized into prevention and treatment studies, and data from each category were analyzed separately. Within each category, subgroup analyses were performed based on low (3 to 12mg/kg/day) and high doses (> 12mg/kg/day) of erythromycin. Primary outcome was days to full enteral feeding. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects associated with erythromycin, duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), weight gain, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and length of hospital stay. MAIN RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled studies (three prevention and seven treatment studies) were included. Studies varied greatly in the definition of feeding intolerance and how outcomes were measured, analyzed and reported, so meta-analysis of most outcomes was impossible. It was observed, however, that the studies using erythromycin at higher treatment doses (40 to 50 mg/kg/day) or in infants > 32 weeks' GA reported more positive effects in improving feeding intolerance.Meta-analysis of high dose prevention studies showed no significant difference in NEC (typical RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.11, 3.01; typical RD -0.021, 95% CI -0.087, 0.045). Meta-analysis of high dose treatment studies showed no significant difference in septicemia (typical RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.47, 1.45; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.17, 0.08). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of erythromycin in low or high doses for preterm infants with or at risk of feeding intolerance. Future research is needed to determine if there is a more precise dose range where erythromycin might be effective as a prokinetic agent in preterm infants > 32 weeks' GA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations79
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207