MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117922277 · doi:10.1002/ebch.1977

Cochrane in context: Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants

2014· article· en· W2117922277 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNecrotizing enterocolitisMedicineContext (archaeology)Cochrane collaborationSystematic reviewPediatricsCochrane LibraryIntensive care medicineEnterocolitisMeta-analysisMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and nosocomial sepsis are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Through prevention of bacterial migration across the mucosa, competitive exclusion of pathogenic bacteria and by enhancing the immune responses of the host, prophylactic enteral probiotics (live microbial supplements) may play a role in reducing NEC and the associated morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic enteral probiotics administration versus placebo or no treatment in the prevention of severe NEC or sepsis, or both, in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, searches were made of MEDLINE (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1980 to October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 10), and abstracts of annual meetings of the Society for Pediatric Research (1995 to 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized or quasirandomized controlled trials that enrolled preterm infants <37 weeks gestational age or <2500 g birth weight, or both, were considered. Trials were included if they involved enteral administration of any live microbial supplement (probiotics) and measured at least one pre-specified clinical outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Group were used to assess the methodological quality of the trials and for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four eligible trials were included. Included trials were highly variable with regard to enrolment criteria (i.e. birthweight and gestational age), baseline risk of NEC in the control groups, timing, dose, formulation of the probiotics and feeding regimens. In a meta-analysis of trial data, enteral probiotics supplementation significantly reduced the incidence of severe NEC (stage II or more) (typical relative risk 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.56; 20 studies, 5529 infants) and mortality (typical relative risk 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.81; 17 studies, 5112 infants). There was no evidence of significant reduction of nosocomial sepsis (typical relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.03; 19 studies, 5338 infants). The included trials reported no systemic infection with the supplemental probiotics organism. Probiotics preparations containing either Lactobacillus alone or in combination with Bifidobacterium were found to be effective. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Enteral supplementation of probiotics prevents severe NEC and all-cause mortality in preterm infants. Our updated review of available evidence strongly supports a change in practice. Head-to-head comparative studies are required to assess the most effective preparations, timing and length of therapy to be utilized.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.004

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207