Glycerin suppositories used prophylactically in premature infants (supp): A pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glycerin suppositories are often used to facilitate meconium evacuation in premature infants. The evidence for this practice is inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a multicenter randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of this treatment strategy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an external pilot study for a multicenter randomized controlled trial of premature infants randomized to glycerin suppositories or placebo procedure. Participants were included if they were gestational age of 24 weeks 0 days to 31 weeks 6 days and/or birthweight of 500 to 1500 grams. We excluded infants with life-threatening congenital anomalies, contraindications to receiving suppositories, or signs of clinical instability. Outcomes included cost, recruitment, and treatment-related adverse events. RESULT: A total of 109 were screened, 79 were initially eligible, and 34 consented to participate. Four of these infants were excluded prior to randomization due to thrombocytopenia, 30 were randomized, and 26 reached full enteral feeds. Three infants (10%) experienced rectal bleeding 5 to 43 days after completing study treatments. An anal fissure was noted in two of these patients. There were no cases of rectal perforation but one infant assigned to active treatment developed necrotizing enterocolitis. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a multicenter randomized controlled trial on the use of glycerin suppositories in premature infants is feasible. Minor modifications to the study protocol are needed to increase participant recruitment and simplify the administration of study treatments.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".