Glycerin Suppositories and Enemas in Premature Infants: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Premature infants are often given glycerin suppositories or enemas to facilitate meconium evacuation and the transition to enteral feeds. We reviewed the best-available evidence for the use of glycerin suppositories and enemas in premature infants. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of premature infants treated with glycerin suppositories or enemas through January 2022. Studies were screened and data extracted independently and in duplicate. We included RCTs of premature infants <32 weeks gestation and/or birth weight <1500 g who were treated with glycerin suppositories or enemas. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects and reported as relative risk or mean difference. RESULTS: We identified 6 single-center, RCTs of 389 premature infants treated with glycerin suppositories (n = 207) or enemas (n = 182). Mortality rates ranged from 0% to 17%, and the meta-analysis revealed no differences between treatment groups (P = .86). Active treatment was associated with earlier meconium evacuation (mean, 1.5 days; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 0.01; P = .05) but not a faster time to enteral feeds (mean, 0.5 days; P = .48). We identified 1 ongoing trial with a target recruitment of 220 premature infants. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate because of inadequate statistical power and other methodologic issues. CONCLUSIONS: The use of glycerin suppositories and enemas in premature infants is associated with earlier meconium evacuation, but the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain. Treatment has no definitive effects on mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, or enteral feeds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".