Early Caffeine Use in Very Low Birth Weight Infants and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of caffeine citrate for treatment of apnea in very low birth weight infants showed short-term and long-term benefits. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was undertaken to document the effect providing caffeine early (0-2 days of life) compared to providing caffeine late (≥3 days of life) in very low birth weight infants on several neonatal outcomes, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). We searched MEDLINE, the EMBASE database, the Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed for this meta-analysis. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Jadad's scale. Studies were included if they examined the effect of the early use of caffeine compared with the late use of caffeine. Two reviewers screened the candidate articles and extracted the data from the full-text of all of the included studies. We included a total of 59,136 participants (range 58,997-59,136; variable in one study) from a total of 5 studies. The risk of death (odds ratio [OR], 0.902; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.828 to 0.983; P=0.019), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (OR, 0.507; 95% CI, 0.396 to 0.648; P<0.001), and BPD or death (OR, 0.526; 95% CI, 0.384 to 0.719; P<0.001) were lower in the early caffeine group. Early caffeine use was not associated with a risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and NEC requiring surgery. This meta-analysis suggests that early caffeine use has beneficial effects on neonatal outcomes, including mortality and BPD, without increasing the risk of NEC.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".