Treatment Options for Pediatric Patent Ductus Arteriosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in the nonpremature pediatric patient is currently treated by surgical ligation or catheter occlusion. There is no clear superiority of one technique over the other. This meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of the two treatment options for PDA. METHODS: We performed a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane database of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that took place between 1950 and February 2014 and hand-searched references from included studies. We excluded studies of adult or premature patients and those without a direct comparison between surgical and catheter-based treatments of PDAs. Outcomes of interest were reintervention, total complications, length of stay, and cost. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred thirty-three manuscripts were screened. Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria (one RCT and seven observational studies [N = 1,107]). In pooled observational studies, there were significantly decreased odds (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.42) for reintervention in the surgical ligation group but insignificantly higher odds for overall complications (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.68-5.91). There were no complications reported in the RCT, but surgical ligation was associated with decreased odds for reintervention and a longer length of stay. Funnel plots revealed a possible publication bias and a quality review identified comparability bias. CONCLUSIONS: Both therapies have comparable outcomes. Reintervention is more common with catheter-based treatment, but overall complication rates are not higher and hospital stay is shorter. Our data span > 2 decades and may not reflect current surgical and catheterization outcomes. Large, randomized, prospective studies may help determine the optimal treatment strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".