MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128926687 · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1722953

Laryngeal Mask Airway for Surfactant Administration Versus Standard Treatment Methods in Preterm Neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3128926687 on OpenAlexaff
Roqaia Ayesh Al Ali, Bishal Gautam, Michael R. Miller, Sherry Coulson, D. Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteRoyal Alexandra HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory distressRelative riskBronchopulmonary dysplasiaMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationPneumothoraxIntubationConfidence intervalAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineGestational agePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has emerged as an alternative surfactant delivery method. The effectiveness of this method for the delivery of surfactant is uncertain. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing LMA with standard methods of surfactant delivery for the outcomes of surfactant dose repetition, oxygen requirement, mechanical ventilation, intubation, mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and pneumothorax. STUDY DESIGN: statistics. Risk ratio or mean difference of outcomes was assessed from random effects models. Subgroup analyses were conducted when necessary. Data sources are as follows: Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials from inception till December 2018, bibliographies of identified reviews and trial registries for ongoing studies. RCTs comparing short-term respiratory outcomes in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome who were administered surfactant through an LMA versus standard method of care. RESULTS: requirement (mean difference = 1.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.01-9.66), decreased intubation (risk ratio [RR] = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57), and decreased mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.31-0.61). There were no significant differences between groups for death, BPD, or pneumothorax. CONCLUSION: LMA might be an effective alternative method of surfactant delivery; however, further high-quality RCTs with larger sample size and including extreme preterm infants are needed to establish LMA as an alternative technique for surfactant delivery. KEY POINTS: · Pulmonary surfactants reduce mortality and pulmonary air leaks in newborns with respiratory distress syndrome.. · Preterm lungs are at risk of volutrauma by mechanical ventilation; laryngoscopy is still traumatic.. · Surfactant administration via LMA to avoid mechanical ventilation and intubation might be feasible..

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207