Effect of Phototherapy on the Reliability of Transcutaneous Bilirubin Devices in Term and Near-Term Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) devices are commonly used for screening of hyperbilirubinemia in term and near-term infants not exposed to phototherapy. However, the accuracy of TcB devices in infants exposed to phototherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of studies comparing TcB devices with total serum bilirubin (TSB) in infants receiving phototherapy or in the postphototherapy phase. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Scopus databases (from inception to May 8, 2014) were searched. Additional citations were identified from the bibliography of selected articles and from the abstracts of conference proceedings. The studies were included if they compared TcB results with TSB in term and near-term infants during phototherapy or after discontinuation of phototherapy. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, and discrepancies were resolved with consensus. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified. The pooled estimates of correlation coefficients (r) during phototherapy were: covered sites 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.77, 11 studies), uncovered sites 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.74), 8 studies), forehead 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75, 12 studies) and sternum 0.64 (95% CI 0.43-0.77, 5 studies). Two studies also provided results as Bland-Altman difference plots (mean TcB-TSB differences -29.2 and 30 µmol/l, respectively). The correlation coefficient improved marginally in the postphototherapy phase (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.78, 4 studies). CONCLUSION: We found a moderate correlation between TcB and TSB during phototherapy with a marginal improvement in the postphototherapy phase. Further research is needed before the use of TcB devices can be recommended for these settings.
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 | 0.021 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".