Theophylline and aminophylline for prevention of acute kidney injury in neonates and children: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of theophylline or aminophylline for prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) in neonates and children. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis with application of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Data sources PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane renal group were searched from 1970 to May 2018. Eligibility criteria Randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of prophylactic theophylline or aminophylline for prevention of AKI in neonates and children were included. The primary outcomes were: incidence of AKI, serum creatinine levels and all-cause mortality. Results A total of nine trials were included in the qualitative synthesis. Six trials including 436 term neonates with birth asphyxia who received a single dose of theophylline were finally included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate showed 60% reduction in the incidence of AKI in neonates with severe birth asphyxia (RR: 0.40; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.54; heterogeneity: I 2 =0%) (moderate quality evidence), decrease in serum creatinine over days 2–5 (very low to low quality evidence) without significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.50; heterogeneity: I 2 =0%) (very low-quality evidence). A significant difference in the negative fluid balance, increase in GFR and decrease in urinary β2 microglobulin was seen in favour of theophylline. Conclusion and relevance A single dose of prophylactic theophylline helps in prevention of AKI/severe renal dysfunction in term neonates with severe birth asphyxia (moderate quality evidence) without increasing the risk of complications and without affecting all-cause mortality (very low-quality evidence). Trial registration number CRD 42017073600.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".