International, multicentre, observational study of fluid bolus therapy in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the prevalence, types and indications for fluid bolus therapy in neonates with haemodynamic compromise. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, international, multicentre observational study in neonatal units across Australasia, Europe and North America with a predefined study period of 10-15 study days per participating neonatal unit between December 2015 and March 2017. Infants ≤28 days of age who received a fluid bolus for the management of haemodynamic compromise (≥10 mL/kg given at ≤6 h) were included. RESULTS: A total of 163 neonates received a bolus over 8479 eligible patient days in 41 neonatal units. Prevalence of fluid bolus therapy varied between centres from 0 to 28.6% of admitted neonates per day, with a pooled prevalence rate of 1.5% (95% confidence interval 1.1-1.9%). The most common fluid used was 0.9% sodium chloride (129/163; 79%), and the volume of fluid administered was most commonly 10 mL/kg (115/163; 71%) over a median of 30 min (interquartile range 20-60). The most frequent indications were hypotension (n = 56; 34%), poor perfusion (n = 20; 12%) and metabolic acidosis (n = 20; 12%). Minimal or no clinical improvement was reported by clinicians in 66 of 163 cases (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Wide international variations in types, indications and effects of fluid bolus administration in haemodynamically compromised neonates suggest uncertainty in the risk-benefit profile. This is likely to reflect the lack of robust evidence to support the efficacy of different fluid types, doses and appropriate indications. Together, these highlight a need for further clinically relevant studies.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".