MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906503401 · doi:10.1542/peds.2018-1828

Initial Oxygen Use for Preterm Newborn Resuscitation: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2906503401 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Welsford, Chika Nishiyama, Colleen Shortt, Gary M. Weiner, Charles Christoph Roehr, Tetsuya Isayama, Jennifer A. Dawson, Myra H. Wyckoff, Yacov Rabi

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation prioritized to review the initial fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) during the resuscitation of preterm newborns. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides the scientific summary of initial Fio2 in preterm newborns (<35 weeks’ gestation) who receive respiratory support at birth. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched between January 1, 1980 and August 10, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected by pairs of independent reviewers in 2 stages with a Cohen’s κ of 0.8 and 1.0. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of independent reviewers extracted data, appraised the risk of bias (RoB), and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled studies and 4 cohort studies included 5697 patients. There are no statistically significant benefits of or harms from starting with lower compared with higher Fio2 in short-term mortality (n = 968; risk ratio = 0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.37]), long-term mortality, neurodevelopmental impairment, or other key preterm morbidities. A sensitivity analysis in which 1 study with a high RoB was excluded failed to reveal a reduction in mortality with initial low Fio2 (n = 681; risk ratio = 0.63 [95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.03]). LIMITATIONS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes due to RoB, inconsistency, and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: The ideal initial Fio2 for preterm newborns is still unknown, although the majority of newborns ≤32 weeks’ gestation will require oxygen supplementation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.347
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations112
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207