MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022314713 · doi:10.1055/s-0040-1710522

COVID-19 and Neonatal Respiratory Care: Current Evidence and Practical Approach

2020· review· en· W3022314713 on OpenAlexaff
Wissam Shalish, Satyan Lakshminrusimha, Paolo Manzoni, Martin Keszler, Guilherme SantʼAnna

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)BetacoronavirusRespiratory systemIntensive care medicineCurrent (fluid)MEDLINECoronavirus InfectionsVirologyPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has urged the development and implementation of guidelines and protocols on diagnosis, management, infection control strategies, and discharge planning. However, very little is currently known about neonatal COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Thus, many questions arise with regard to respiratory care after birth, necessary protection to health care workers (HCW) in the delivery room and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and safety of bag and mask ventilation, noninvasive respiratory support, deep suctioning, endotracheal intubation, and mechanical ventilation. Indeed, these questions have created tremendous confusion amongst neonatal HCW. In this manuscript, we comprehensively reviewed the current evidence regarding COVID-19 perinatal transmission, respiratory outcomes of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 and infants with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the evidence for using different respiratory support modalities and aerosol-generating procedures in this specific population. The results demonstrated that to date, neonatal COVID-19 infection is uncommon, generally acquired postnatally, and associated with favorable respiratory outcomes. The reason why infants display a milder spectrum of disease remains unclear. Nonetheless, the risk of severe or critical illness in young patients exists. Currently, the recommended respiratory approach for infants with suspected or confirmed infection is not evidence based but should include all routinely used types of support, with the addition of viral filters, proper personal protective equipment, and placement of infants in isolation rooms, ideally with negative pressure. As information is changing rapidly, clinicians should frequently watch out for updates on the subject. KEY POINTS: · Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic urged development of guidelines.. · Neonatal COVID-19 disease is uncommon.. · Respiratory outcomes in neonates seems favorable.. · Current neonatal respiratory care should continue.. · Clinicians should watch frequently for updates..

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)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations95
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207