Efficacy and safety of pulmonary application of corticosteroids in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids as the frontline treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants are associated with adverse effects on growth and neurodevelopmental outcome, but the pulmonary administration of steroids may help prevent the development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) without these side effects. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulmonary application of corticosteroids in preterm infants with RDS. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry and grey literature were searched with no restriction on date and language of publication from inception to May 2016. Using a random-effect model, we pooled data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled or endotracheal corticosteroids with the standard of care, placebo or no other intervention in preterm infants with RDS. RESULTS: We identified 873 potential citations and included 12 unique RCTs. Pulmonary corticosteroid therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of BPD or death (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96). Pulmonary application of corticosteroids significantly reduced the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92) and pneumonia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.92). There was no evidence of a significant difference regarding the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment or other side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary administration of corticosteroids reduces the incidence of BPD or death, pneumonia, PDA without causing any major side effects in preterm infants with RDS.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".