Palivizumab and prevention of childhood respiratory syncytial viral infection: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of breakthrough infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Childhood respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is a global phenomenon that can lead to fatal respiratory illness. Palivizumab is a drug that is routinely used in affluent countries as a prophylaxis against RSV infection; nevertheless, breakthrough infections are often reported. In light of new findings on potential RSV resistance to palivizumab, an up-to-date synthesis of evidence on effectiveness is needed. Furthering existing reviews, a broadened scope to better reflect effectiveness in a 'real world' clinical context is also important. This systematic review and meta-analysis will enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of palivizumab in varying populations of children. Findings from this review will inform recommendations for best practices regarding palivizumab use for childhood RSV infection as well as research priorities in RSV vaccine development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of primary population-based studies that examine the incidence of palivizumab breakthrough infections in children, published between 1997 to present. In collaboration with a research librarian, four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) and additional sources will be searched. Study screening and quality assessment will be performed in duplicate. Data will be extracted by one reviewer, with partial and random verification by a second reviewer. The primary outcomes to assess breakthrough RSV infection will be hospitalisation, length of stay and the need for intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation in children receiving palivizumab. The secondary outcome will be RSV-associated mortality. We will conduct a meta-analysis using pooled effectiveness data, and include subgroup analyses by patient comorbidities and drug compliance. Sensitivity analyses for risk of bias and study design will also be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will only include data from previously published literature and is therefore exempt from ethics approval. Final results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at academic conferences and scientific meetings engaging paediatric researchers and healthcare providers. Should findings from this review necessitate updates to current clinical practice guidelines, we intend to establish a working group to engage relevant health administrators and decision makers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122120.
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 | 0.074 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.005 |
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".