Sustained inflations and avoiding mechanical ventilation to prevent death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustained inflations and avoidance of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (eMV) are delivery room interventions aimed at preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Their effectiveness is the subject of the present meta-analysis.The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preterm infants that compared: 1) sustained inflations with intermittent positive-pressure ventilation; and 2) a non-intubated strategy of respiratory support with one that prescribed eMV at an earlier stage. Data extraction and analysis followed the standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome was death or BPD, defined as need for oxygen or positive pressure treatment at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age.Avoiding eMV (nine RCTs, 3486 infants) reduced the risk of death or BPD, with a risk ratio of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.97) and a number needed to treat of 35. After sustained inflations (six RCTs, 854 infants), the risk ratio was 0.85 (95% CI 0.65-1.12). A current multicentre RCT of sustained inflations in very preterm infants was halted for increased early mortality in the sustained inflations arm.While strategies aimed at avoiding eMV had a small but significant impact on preventing BPD, sustained inflations had no effect and may even increase mortality in very preterm infants.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".