MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976532910 · doi:10.1002/ebch.1898

Cochrane Review: Prophylactic phototherapy for preventing jaundice in preterm or low birth weight infants

2013· review· en· W1976532910 on OpenAlexaff
Charles I Okwundu, Christy A. N. Okoromah, Prakesh S. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJaundiceRelative riskPediatricsExchange transfusionMeta-analysisLow birth weightCochrane LibraryGestational ageBirth weightCerebral palsyKernicterusConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialPregnancyInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low birth weight and premature infants are at major risk for exaggerated hyperbilirubinaemia and jaundice that can lead to bilirubin encephalopathy. Phototherapy is the most common treatment for neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia and could be most effective in preventing the sequelae of hyperbilirubinaemia if initiated prophylactically. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic phototherapy for preterm (< 37 weeks gestational age) or low birth weight infants (birth weight < 2500 g). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3) on 31 March 2011, MEDLINE (1950 to 31 March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 31 March 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to 31 March 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled studies evaluating the effects of prophylactic phototherapy for preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently obtained data from published articles. We performed fixed-effect meta-analysis for the outcomes: rate of exchange transfusion, cerebral palsy or other neurodevelopmental impairment, peak serum bilirubin level and all-cause mortality. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies of 3449 participants were included. The rate of exchange transfusion was reduced in one study with liberal transfusion criteria (risk ratio (RR) 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.31) but not in the other two more recent studies with stringent criteria (typical RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.28). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of cerebral palsy (typical RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.85; two studies, 756 participants). However, one large study that reported on neurodevelopmental impairment (a composite outcome including cerebral palsy) found a slightly lower rate of neurodevelopmental impairment with prophylactic phototherapy (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; 1804 participants). The prophylactic phototherapy group had lower peak bilirubin levels (mean difference (MD) -2.73; 95% CI -2.89 to -2.57; six studies, 2319 participants) and had fewer neonates with peak unconjugated serum bilirubin levels > 10 mg/dl (typical RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.33; three studies, 1090 participants) or peak unconjugated serum bilirubin levels > 15 mg/dl (typical RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; four studies, 1116 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between the two groups (typical RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26; four studies, 3044 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic phototherapy helps to maintain a lower serum bilirubin concentration and may have an effect on the rate of exchange transfusion and the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment. However, further well-designed studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of prophylactic phototherapy on long-term outcomes including neurodevelopmental outcomes.

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)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.366 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207