Intratracheal Administration of Budesonide‐Surfactant in Prevention of Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the near universal adaptation of gentle mechanical ventilation, surfactant use and non-invasive respiratory support, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains one of the most common respiratory morbidities in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Thus, the objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of intra-tracheal administration of budesonide-surfactant mixture in preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for randomized clinical trials in which intra-tracheal administration of budesonide-surfactant was used to prevent BPD in infants. The primary outcomes were BPD and composite outcome of death or BPD. Meta-analysis of the two clinical trials revealed that infants who received intra-tracheal instillation of budesonide-surfactant mixture demonstrated 43% reduction in the risk of BPD (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.43-0.76, NNT = 5). Although mortality was not different between the groups (OR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.34-1.04), a 40% reduction was observed in the composite outcome of death or BPD in the budesonide-surfactant group (RR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.49-0.74, NNT = 3). Thus, this review concludes that intra-tracheal administration of budesonide-surfactant combination was associated with decreased incidence of BPD alone or composite outcome of death or BPD in VLBW infants though there is a need for larger trials before it can be recommended as a standard of care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".