MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011345143 · doi:10.3390/nu12030791

Effect of Synthetic Vitamin A and Probiotics Supplementation for Prevention of Morbidity and Mortality during the Neonatal Period. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

2020· review· en· W3011345143 on OpenAlexaff
Aamer Imdad, Faseeha Rehman, Evan W. Davis, Suzanna Attia, Deepika Ranjit, Gamael Saint Surin, Sarah Lawler, Abigail Smith, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Suboptimal nutritional status of a newborn is a risk factor for short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this review were to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of neonatal synthetic vitamin A supplementation, dextrose gel and probiotic supplementation for prevention of morbidity and mortality during infancy in low and middle-income countries. Methods: We included randomized trials. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We conducted electronic searches on multiple databases. Data were meta-analyzed to obtain relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Studies for vitamin A and Probiotics were analyzed separately. No studies were found for dextrose gel supplementation during neonatal period. The overall rating of evidence was determined by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Sixteen studies assessed the effect of vitamin A supplementation during the neonatal period. Based on pooled data from community-based studies only, there was no significant effect of vitamin A on all-cause mortality at age 1 month (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90, 1.08), 6 months (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.89–1.08) and 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94, 1.14) but increased risk of bulging fontanelle (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12, 2.09). The overall quality of evidence was high for the above outcomes. Thirty-three studies assessed the effect of probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period and were mostly conducted in the hospital setting. Probiotics reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66, 0.96), necrotizing enterocolitis (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35, 0.59) and neonatal sepsis (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70, 0.86). The grade ratings for the above three outcomes were high. Conclusions: Vitamin A supplementation during the neonatal period does not reduce all-cause neonatal or infant mortality in low and middle-income countries in the community setting. Probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period seems to reduce all-cause mortality, NEC, and sepsis in babies born low birth weight and/or preterm in the hospital setting.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.031
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207