MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771951177 · doi:10.1016/j.pedneo.2017.12.002

Positive end-expiratory pressure during resuscitation at birth in very-low birth weight infants: A randomized-controlled pilot trial

2017· article· en· W2771951177 on OpenAlexaff
Ratchada Kitsommart, Kittaya Nakornchai, Buranee Yangthara, Ratchada Jiraprasertwong, Bosco Paes

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics & Neonatology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational agePositive end-expiratory pressureFraction of inspired oxygenResuscitationAnesthesiaBirth weightRespiratory distressNeonatal resuscitationContinuous positive airway pressurePneumothoraxMechanical ventilationSurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is limited evidence of the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during resuscitation soon after birth. Premature neonates may experience respiratory distress from surfactant insufficiency and providing PEEP after the very first breath, may improve outcomes following appropriate resuscitation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short term respiratory outcomes after positive pressure ventilation (PPV) with PEEP in preterm infants at birth. Methods A prospective randomized-controlled, pilot trial was conducted. Premature neonates ≤ 32 weeks gestational age or birth weight < 1500 g were recruited. Subjects were allocated to either PEEP of 5 cm H 2 O (PEEP-5) or no PEEP (PEEP-0) if PPV was administered. Pre-ductal, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) and fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (FiO 2 ) were monitored at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min after birth. FiO 2 was adjusted to achieve targeted SpO 2 using the 2010 neonatal resuscitation protocol guidelines. Results 56% (14/25; PEEP-0) and 50% (13/26; PEEP-5) infants received PPV. Mean gestational age was 30 (PEEP-0) vs 31 (PEEP-5) weeks. The mean [SD] birthweight (g) of PEEP-0 was significantly lower than PEEP-5 (1050.4 [262.7] vs 1218.8 [236.8], p = 0.02). Pre-ductal SpO 2, FiO 2 delivered at each time point, and rates of pneumothorax, surfactant administration and oxygen dependency at 36 weeks postmenstrual age or death was similar. Conclusion Due to the small sample size and potential bias accrued through random allocation of higher birthweight infants to the PEEP-5 group, the results did not confirm differences in outcomes between the groups, despite evidence favoring postnatal ventilation with PEEP. A further randomized, controlled clinical trial with a larger sample size is warranted to determine the utility and safety of PEEP during the resuscitation of premature infants immediately after birth.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics & NeonatologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207