MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944888559 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025440

Association between sepsis and retinopathy of prematurity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2944888559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaofen Wang, Kun Tang, Ling Chen, Sixiang Cheng, Huilan Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinopathy of prematurityMeta-analysisSepsisCochrane LibraryStudy heterogeneityCohort studyObservational studyData extractionPediatricsMEDLINESubgroup analysisInternal medicineGestational agePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To explore the association between sepsis and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in premature infants. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources We performed a systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase from 1 January, 2000, to 1 January, 2018, with no language restrictions and reported the relationship between sepsis and ROP. Eligibility criteria Original observational studies, including cohort studies and case-control studies. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently completed the study selection and data extraction. The OR and corresponding 95% CI were used to measure the risk of sepsis in patients with ROP. The heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and the I 2 statistic. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was adopted to evaluate the quality of each of the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Results Sixteen studies with a total sample size of 12 466 premature infants and 2494 cases of ROP were included in this meta-analysis. Adjusted analysis showed that sepsis was closely related to any stage of ROP (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.89) and severe stage of ROP (OR = 2.33, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.51) in premature infants, with 56.3% and 81.8% heterogeneity, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that heterogeneity was obvious in prospective cohort studies (I 2 = 62.1%, p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis, we found that removing any single study did not significantly change the overall effect value. The quality of the evidence was rated as low for both any stage of ROP and severe stage of ROP. Conclusions Sepsis increases the risk of ROP in preterm infants. However, considering that all included studies are observational and causality can rarely be established, additional evidence is needed to substantiate this finding and provide advice for practice.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.046
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicRetinopathy of Prematurity StudiesFrench-language works237,207