MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891266048 · doi:10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_328_17

Comparative effectiveness of prophylactic therapies for necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants: Protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomized trials

2018· article· en· W2891266048 on OpenAlexaff
B. C. Johnston, Behnam Sadeghirad, Iván D. Flórez, Yaping Chang, Farid Forutan, Dena Zeraatkar, Rebecca L. Morgan, Shaneela Shahid, MalgorzataM Bala, Joseph Beyene, Martin Offringa, Thomasin Adams-Webber, PhilipM Sherman, Enas El-Gouhary, G. H. Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Preventive Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesImpactUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkSickKids FoundationDalhousie UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNecrotizing enterocolitisRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECINAHLIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisPediatricsGestational ageCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewPsychological interventionInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a common and devastating disease with high morbidity and mortality in premature infants. Current literature on the prevention of NEC has limitations including lack of direct and indirect comparisons of available therapies. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, and grey literature sources to identify eligible trials evaluating NEC preventive therapies. Eligible studies will (1) enroll preterm (gestational age <37 weeks) and/or low birth weight (birth weight <2500 g) infants, (2) randomize infants to any preventive intervention or a placebo, or alternative active or nonactive intervention. Our outcomes of interest are severe NEC (stage II or more, based on Bell's criteria), all-cause mortality, NEC-related mortality, late-onset sepsis, duration of hospitalization, weight gain, time to establish full enteral feeds, and treatment-related adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen trials for eligibility, assess risk of bias, and extract data. All discrepancies will be resolved by discussion. We will specify a priori explanations for heterogeneity between studies. For available comparisons between treatment and no treatment, and direct comparisons of treatments, we will conduct conventional meta-analysis using a random effects model. We will conduct a network meta-analysis using a random effects model within the Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to assess relative effects of eligible interventions. We will assess the certainty in direct, indirect, and network estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Ethics and Dissemination: We will disseminate our findings through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

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)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.031
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.006

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Preventive MedicineSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207