Nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enteral feeding tubes for preterm or low birth weight infants may be placed via either the nose or mouth. Nasal placement may compromise respiration. However, orally placed tubes may be more prone to displacement, local irritation, and vagal stimulation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the available evidence from randomised controlled trials concerning the effects of nasally placed compared with orally placed feeding tubes on growth and development, and the incidence of adverse consequences in preterm or low birth weight infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004), EMBASE (1988 - April 2004), and CINAHL (1982- April 2004), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of the nasal versus oral route for placing feeding tubes in preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each author, and analysis of data using relative risk, risk difference and mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We found only one eligible trial. Forty-two infants participated in the study. This primary aim of the trial was to assess the effect of oral versus nasal placement of feeding tubes on the incidence of apnea and periodic breathing in preterm infants. The trial did not report data on the pre-specified primary outcomes for this review (growth and development). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data available to inform practice. A large randomised controlled trial is required to determine if the use of nasally placed feeding tubes compared with orally placed feeding tubes improves growth and development, without increasing adverse consequences in preterm or low birth weight infants.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".