MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2752016320 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-43

44: Antibiotic Administration for Meconium Aspiration Syndrome in Neonates: A Systematic Review

2014· review· en· W2752016320 on OpenAlexaff
Pharuhad Pongmee, Gaurav Nagar, S. Campbell, Manoj Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeconium aspiration syndromeRelative riskRespiratory distressRandomized controlled trialAntibioticsSepsisPediatricsIntensive care medicineMeconiumPregnancyInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) is a common cause of respiratory distress in neonatal period. Antibiotic treatment is one of medical therapy which widely used in newborns with MAS but the efficacy of routine antibiotic administration is doubtful. To conduct a systematic review of the clinical trials evaluating the role of antibiotics in MAS. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL AND CINAHL, SCOPUS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Proquest Dissertations and Theses and EBM Reviews (until August 2013). Studies were included if they satisfied the following criteria: randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing the use of antibiotics to no antibiotics for treatment or prevention of MAS and reporting on any of the following outcomes: development of infection, need for ventilation or oxygen support, duration of hospital stay, air leaks syndrome, PPHN, need for ECMO or inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), and mortality. We calculated relative risks (RR) for the dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for the continuous outcomes, along with the 95% CIs. Four RCTs were identified; three studies enrolled subjects for treatment of MAS and one study evaluated prophylactic use of antibiotics in infants exposed to meconium stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). These trials enrolled 693 infants in total and the duration of antibiotics used was three to seven days. All studies excluded subjects considered to be at higher risk for neonatal sepsis at onset due to antenatal risk factors and/or positive septic screen. There were no difference in development of infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.28 to 1.59] for clinical sepsis and 0.93 [95% CI 0.36 to 2.40] for culture-proven sepsis), mortality (RR 1.25 [95% CI 0.36 to 4.39]), need for ventilation (RR 1.16 [95% CI 0.50 to 2.66] for mechanical ventilation and 1.09 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.69] for CPAP), duration of oxygen (MD −0.64 [95% CI −1.49 to 0.21]), air leaks syndrome (RR 1.56 [95% CI 0.62 to 3.91]) and hospital stay (MD 0.16 days [95% CI −1.16 to 1.48]) between the two groups. In neonates who are otherwise at low-risk for neonatal sepsis, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of antibiotics for treatment of MAS or for prophylaxis in infants exposed to MSAF.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→