MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761522506 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e61

76: Glycerin Enemas and Suppositories in Premature Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015· review· en· W2761522506 on OpenAlexaff
Michael H. Livingston, Anna C. Shawyer, Peter Rosenbaum, S. Tarran Jones, Christopher Williams, Walton Jm

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNecrotizing enterocolitisMedicineMeconiumEnteral administrationRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryGestationEnemaGestational agePediatricsPerforationObstetricsPregnancySurgeryParenteral nutritionInternal medicineFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Premature infants often receive glycerin enemas or suppositories to facilitate meconium evacuation and transition to enteral feeding. The evidence to support this practice remains unclear. To establish the level of evidence regarding the use of glycerin enemas and suppositories in premature infants. We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and trial registries for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of using glycerin enemas and suppositories in premature infants. All records were reviewed independently and in duplicate. Abstracted data were meta-analyzed in Review Manager using a random effects model. We identified 185 premature infants treated prophylactically with glycerin enemas (n=81, one trial) or suppositories (n=104, two trials). Infants were less than 32 weeks gestation and had no congenital malformations. In all three trials, administration of glycerin enemas or suppositories started within the first two days of life and was stopped on or before day 15. This treatment strategy was associated with earlier initiation of stooling in one trial (2 vs 4 days, P=0.02) and a trend towards earlier meconium evacuation in another (6.5 vs 9 days, P=0.11). One other trial did not report stooling outcomes. Meta-analysis indicated that the use of glycerin enemas or suppositories had no statistically significant effect on time to full enteral feeds (0.7 days faster with treatment, P=0.49). There were no reports of rectal bleeding or perforation but there was a trend towards increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis with glycerin enemas or suppositories (risk ratio=2.72, P=0.13). All three trials were limited by small sample sizes and the possibility of selective reporting. One study used a sham procedure to maintain blinding while the other two were open studies with no blinding. At least three other trials are underway. Daily administration of glycerin enemas or suppositories does not appear to expedite transition to full enteral feeding in premature infants less than 32 weeks gestation. Meta-analyzed data suggest that treatment may be associated with increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis. These conclusions may change as more results become available. Careful monitoring of ongoing trials is required.

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)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.034
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicInfant Nutrition and Health→French-language works237,207→