MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhaled nitric oxide for respiratory failure in preterm infants

2006· reference-entry· en· W4241172547 on OpenAlexaff
Keith J. Barrington, NN Finer

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaMedicineNitric oxideCochrane LibraryPlaceboRespiratory failureAnesthesiaPediatricsRandomized controlled trialGestational ageInternal medicinePregnancyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide has been proven effective in term infants with hypoxic respiratory failure. The pathophysiology of respiratory failure, and the potential risks, differ substantially in preterm infants. Analysis of the efficacy and toxicities of inhaled nitric oxide in infants born before 35 weeks is therefore necessary. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, in preterm newborn infants (< 35 weeks gestation) who have hypoxic respiratory failure, treatment with inhaled nitric oxide improves oxygenation within 2 hours and reduces the rates of death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage, or neurodevelopmental disability SEARCH STRATEGY: Standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), using the following keywords: nitric oxide, clinical trial, newborn, and covering years from 1985 to 2005. In addition, we searched the abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi randomised studies in preterm infants with hypoxic respiratory failure. Administration of inhaled nitric oxide compared to control with or without placebo. Clinically relevant outcomes that were analysed included death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (defined as oxygen dependence at 36 weeks postconceptional age), intraventricular haemorrhage, long term neurodevelopmental outcome and short term effects on oxygenation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used. Two investigators extracted, assessed and coded separately all data for each study. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials of inhaled nitric oxide therapy in preterm infants were found. One study consisted of infants determined to have a high risk of developing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (Subhedar 1997). One study studied routine use of inhaled NO in all ventilated preterm infants (Schreiber 2003). The remaining studies consisted of infants with high predicted mortality based on poor oxygenation (Kinsella 1999; Hascoet 2005; INNOVO 2005; Van Meurs 2005; Mercier 1999). No significant effect of inhaled nitric oxide on mortality or bronchopulmonary dysplasia was demonstrated. There was no evidence of effect on the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage. There may be short term improvements in oxygenation. Two studies (Schreiber 2003; INNOVO 2005) have so far presented data on long term neurodevelopmental outcome, one of which demonstrated improved outcome at two years corrected age. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently published evidence from randomised trials does not support the use of inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants with hypoxic respiratory failure. Further studies may need to be performed to evaluate the potential benefit of routine use of this therapy in infants with milder forms of respiratory failure, and these trials will need to be designed to evaluate not only neonatal survival, and the occurrence of neonatal morbidities, but should be powered to evaluate neurodevelopmental outcome at a minimum of two years of age.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207