Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent pulmonary hypertension in neonates (PPHN) is associated with high mortality. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for PPHN is assisted ventilation and administration of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). However, nitric oxide is costly and may not be appropriate in resource-poor settings. Approximately 30% of patients fail to respond to iNO. High concentrations of phosphodiesterases in the pulmonary vasculature has led to the use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors such as sildenafil or milrinone. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of Sildenafil in the treatment of persistent pulmonary hypertension in neonates. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL databases were searched from their inception until March 2007; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Library, the reference lists of identified trials, and abstracts of meetings were searched without any language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of Sildenafil compared with placebo or other pulmonary vasodilators, irrespective of dose, route and duration of administration in neonates with PPHN, were included if the trial reported any of the pre-specified outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed regarding how bias at study entry, study intervention and outcomes measurement was minimized. Data on relevant outcomes were extracted and the effect size was estimated and reported as relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (MD) as appropriate. The I-squared (I(2)) test of heterogeneity was applied. MAIN RESULTS: Two small eligible trials (one full article and one abstract) were identified. The methodological quality of the trial presented in the full article was good. Information provided in the abstract was limited. The total number of enrolled patients in the two studies was 37. Both studies were performed in resource-limited settings where iNO and high frequency ventilation are not available. Both studies reported statistically significant improvement in oxygenation (reduction in oxygenation index) in the Sildenafil group. One study reported what would be, if replicated, a strongly protective effect on mortality (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03, 1.09) favoring the Sildenafil group. However, this result needs to be replicated in larger studies. No clinically important side effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The safety and effectiveness of sildenafil in the treatment of PPHN has not yet been established and its use should be restricted within the context of randomized controlled trials. Further randomized controlled trials of adequate power comparing Sildenafil with other pulmonary vasodilators are needed in moderately ill infants with PPHN.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".