MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interventions for prevention of neonatal hyperglycemia in very low birth weight infants

2009· reference-entry· en· W4233690358 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Sinclair, Marcela Bottino, Richard M. Cowett

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsRandomized controlled trialBirth weightBlindingLow birth weightCochrane LibraryRelative riskClinical trialGestational ageMeta-analysisAdverse effectPsychological interventionMEDLINEConfidence intervalPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Among very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, early neonatal hyperglycemia is common and is associated with increased risks for death and major morbidities. It is uncertain whether hyperglycemia per se is a cause of adverse clinical outcomes or whether outcomes can be improved by preventing hyperglycemia. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects on clinical outcomes of interventions for preventing hyperglycemia in VLBW neonates receiving full or partial parenteral nutrition. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2008; MEDLINE (1966 - Nov 2008); EMBASE (1980 - Nov 2008); CINAHL (1982 - Nov 2008); abstracts of Pediatric Academic Societies 2000 - 2008 and European Society for Paediatric Research 2005 - 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for prevention of hyperglycemia in neonates with birth weight < 1500 g or gestational age < 32 wk DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for eligibility and extracted data on study design, methods, clinical features, and treatment outcomes. Included trials were assessed for blinding of randomization, intervention and outcome measurement, and completeness of follow-up. Treatment effect measures for categorical outcomes were relative risk and risk difference, and for continuous outcomes, mean difference, each with their 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: We detected four eligible trials. Two trials compared lower vs. higher rates of glucose infusion in the early postnatal period. These trials were too small to assess effects on mortality or major morbidities. Two trials, one a moderately large multicentre trial (NIRTURE, Beardsall 2008), compared insulin infusion with standard care. Insulin infusion reduced hyperglycemia but increased death before 28 days and hypoglycemia. Reduction in hyperglycemia was not accompanied by significant effects on major morbidities; effects on neurodevelopment are awaited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Glucose infusion rate: There is insufficient evidence from trials comparing lower with higher glucose infusion rates to inform clinical practice. Large randomized trials are needed, powered on clinical outcomes including death, major morbidities and adverse neurodevelopment.Insulin infusion: The evidence reviewed does not support the routine use of insulin infusions to prevent hyperglycemia in VLBW neonates. Further randomized trials of insulin infusion may be justified. They should enrol extremely low birth weight neonates at very high risk for hyperglycemia and neonatal death. They might use real time glucose monitors if these are validated for clinical use. Refinement of algorithms to guide insulin infusion is needed to enable tight control of glucose concentrations within the target range.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207