Outpatient pharmacologic weaning for neonatal abstinence syndrome: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the literature regarding the effectiveness and safety of outpatient pharmacologic weaning for infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). BACKGROUND: NAS is a multi-system disorder observed in infants experiencing withdrawal from opioid exposure in utero. Infants requiring pharmacologic treatment to manage withdrawal, traditionally receive treatment as a hospital inpatient resulting in lengthy hospitalization periods. However, there is evidence to suggest that some healthcare institutions are continuing outpatient pharmacologic weaning for select infants in a home environment. As there is no standard of care to guide outpatient weaning, assessment of the safety and effectiveness of this approach is warranted. METHOD: A systematic review of outpatient weaning for infants with NAS was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Nursing and Allied Health, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine, Web of Science, Medline, and PsychINFO. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) reported original data on outcomes related to the effectiveness or safety of outpatient weaning for infants with NAS, (2) infants were discharged from hospital primarily receiving opioid pharmacologic treatment for NAS, (3) the method included quantitative designs that included an inpatient comparison group, and (4) articles were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal. FINDINGS: The search identified 154 studies, of which 18 provided information related to NAS and outpatient weaning. After reviewing the remaining full-text studies, six studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. All studies identified that outpatient weaning for select infants was associated with shorter hospitalization compared with infants weaned in-hospital only and may be potentially effective in reducing associated healthcare costs. However, duration of pharmacologic treatment was longer in the outpatient weaning groups in the majority of the studies. Furthermore, adverse events were rare and compliance to follow-up treatment was high among those who received outpatient weaning.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".