MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1687908194 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003213

Dopamine versus no treatment to prevent renal dysfunction in indomethacin-treated preterm newborn infants

2002· review· en· W1687908194 on OpenAlexaff
Keith J. Barrington, Luc P. Brion

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOliguriaRandomized controlled trialRelative riskMeta-analysisIntraventricular hemorrhageCochrane LibraryAdverse effectRenal functionAnesthesiaSubgroup analysisPediatricsInternal medicineGestational ageConfidence intervalPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Indomethacin therapy for closure of patent ductus arteriosus frequently causes oliguria, and occasionally more serious renal dysfunction. Low dose dopamine has been suggested as a means for preventing this side effect. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether dopamine therapy may prevent indomethacin-mediated deterioration in renal function in the preterm newborn infant without serious adverse effects. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of dopamine on the above variables in two subgroups: (1) patients given indomethacin as prophylaxis of intraventricular hemorrhage, and (2) patients given indomethacin as treatment of patent ductus arteriosus SEARCH STRATEGY: Standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) were used. We searched MEDLINE (1966-2001) using PubMed as the search engine, EMBASE (1974-2001) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) from the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2001). In addition we contacted the principal investigators if necessary to ascertain the required information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized studies of the effects of dopamine on urine output, glomerular filtration rate, fluid balance or incidence of renal failure, in preterm newborn infants receiving indomethacin. The comparison group should have received no dopamine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and those of the CNRG. The primary outcomes of interest were: mortality before discharge; intraventricular hemorrhage, grade three or four; cystic periventricular leukomalacia; renal failure (either oliguria, defined as a urine output less than 1 ml/kg/hour or an elevation in creatinine by more than 40 micromoles/L); failure to close the ductus arteriosus; need for surgical PDA ligation. For categorical outcomes, we calculated typical estimates for relative risk and risk difference. For continuous outcomes the weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated. Fixed effect models were assumed for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies were found (total number randomized patients, 75) which fulfilled the entry criteria for this review. All were single center trials which enrolled NICU patients receiving indomethacin for symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus. There are no (or only partial) results for effects of dopamine on several of the primary outcomes, including death before discharge, serious intraventricular hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, or renal failure. There has been inadequate investigation of the effects of dopamine on cerebral perfusion or cardiac output, or GI complications, or endocrine toxicity. Dopamine improved urine output [WMD 0.68 ml/kg/hour (95% CI 0.22, 1.44)], but there was no evidence of effect on serum creatinine (WMD 2.04 micromoles/liter, CI -17.90, 21.97) or the incidence of oliguria (urine output < 1 ml/kg/hour) (RR 0.73, CI 0.35, 1.54). There was no evidence of effect of dopamine on the frequency of failure to close the ductus arteriosus (RR 1.11, CI 0.56, 2.19). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomized trials to support the use of dopamine to prevent renal dysfunction in indomethacin-treated preterm 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
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 score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

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

Citations51
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207