Devices for Administering Ventilation at Birth: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is the most important intervention during neonatal resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: To compare T-piece resuscitators (TPRs), self-inflating bags (SIBs), and flow-inflating bags for newborns receiving PPV during delivery room resuscitation. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and trial registries (inception to December 2020). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, quasi-randomized, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after, and cohort studies were included without language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. When appropriate, data were pooled by using fixed-effect models. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials (1247 patients) revealed no significant difference between TPR and SIB for in-hospital mortality (risk ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 1.34). Resuscitation with a TPR resulted in a shorter duration of PPV (mean difference -19.8 seconds; 95% CI -27.7 to -12.0 seconds) and lower risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (risk ratio 0.64; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.95; number needed to treat 32). No differences in clinically relevant outcomes were found in 2 randomized controlled trials used to compare SIBs with and without positive end-expiratory pressure valves. No studies used to evaluate flow-inflating bags were found. LIMITATIONS: Certainty of evidence was very low or low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation with a TPR compared with an SIB reduces the duration of PPV and risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. A strong recommendation cannot be made because of the low certainty of evidence. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of positive end-expiratory pressure valves when used with SIBs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".