MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sildenafil for pulmonary hypertension in neonates

2011· reference-entry· en· W4237859916 on OpenAlexaff
Prakesh S. Shah, Arne Ohlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSildenafilMedicineMilrinonePulmonary hypertensionPlaceboCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRelative riskInternal medicineAnesthesiaConfidence intervalHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL databases were searched from their inception until December 2010; Clinicaltrials.gov web site, the reference lists of identified trials, and abstracts of meetings were searched without any language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised 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 was minimized at study entry, during study intervention and at outcomes measurement. 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: Three eligible trials that enrolled 77 infants were identified. The methodological quality of the studies indicated low-moderate risk of bias. All studies were performed in resource-limited settings where iNO and high frequency ventilation were not available at the time of study. There was significant reduction in mortality in the sildenafil group (typical RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57; typical RD -0.38, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.16; Number needed to treat to benefit 3, 95% CI 2 to 6). Physiological parameters of oxygenation (oxygenation index, PaO(2)) suggested a steady improvement after the first dose of sildenafil. No clinically important side effects were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil in the treatment of PPHN has significant potential especially in resource limited settings. However, a large scale randomised trial comparing sildenafil with the currently used vasodilator, inhaled nitric oxide, is needed to assess efficacy and safety.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations59
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207