MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early erythropoietin for preventing red blood cell transfusion in preterm and/or low birth weight infants

2012· review· en· W4245448789 on OpenAlexaff
Arne Ohlsson, Sanjay M Aher

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryPediatricsPlaceboErythropoietinRelative riskLow birth weightRegimenRandomized controlled trialRetinopathy of prematurityClinical trialBirth weightConfidence intervalAdverse effectPregnancyGestational ageInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low plasma levels of erythropoietin (EPO) in preterm infants provide a rationale for the use of EPO to prevent or treat anaemia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of early initiation of EPO in reducing red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in preterm and/or low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, abstracts from scientific meetings published in Pediatric Research and reference lists of identified trials and reviews were searched through July 2009. Searches were repeated in March 2012 including searches of Pediatric Academic Societies Annual meetings 2000 to 2012 (Abstracts2View(TM)) and clinical trials registries (clinicaltrials.gov; controlled-trials.com; and who.int/ictrp). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of early (< eight days of age) initiation of EPO treatment versus placebo or no intervention in preterm and/or low birth weight neonates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were accomplished using the methods of the Neonatal Cochrane Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: The May 2012 update did not identify any new studies for inclusion. A number of randomised controlled trials were excluded as they compared one EPO dosing regimen with another, did not provide the numbers of infants randomised to the EPO and the placebo group, or the dose of EPO was not stated. The update includes 27 studies that enrolled 2293 preterm infants. Early EPO reduced the risk of the "use of one or more RBC transfusions" [typical risk ratio (RR); 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.86); typical risk difference (RD) -0.13, (95% CI -0.17 to -0.09); number needed to benefit (NNTB) = eight, (95% CI 6 to 11); 16 studies, 1,825 infants].There was moderate heterogeneity for this outcome [RR (P = 0.004; I(2) = 56.7%); RD (P = 0.003; I(2) = 56.0%)].A total of six studies enrolling 515 infants reported on the total volume of red blood cells transfused per infant. The significant typical mean difference (MD) was a reduction of 6 mL/kg of blood transfused (mL/kg) per infant (95% CI -11 to - 1). There was moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (P = 0.02; I(2) = 63.0%). The results from 14 studies enrolling 1131 infants reported on the number of red blood cell transfusions per infant. The significant typical MD for number of red blood cell transfusions per infant was -0.33, (95% CI -0.48 to -0.18). There was high heterogeneity for this outcome (P = 0.00001, I(2) = 78%). Two studies enrolling 188 infants reported on the number of donors to whom the infant was exposed; the MD was significantly reduced -0.63, (-1.07 to -0.19). There was no heterogeneity for this outcome (P = 0.59; I(2) = 0%).There was a significant increase in the risk of stage ≥ 3 retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in the early EPO group [typical RR; 1.65, (95% CI 1.12 to 2.43); typical RD; 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.08); number needed to harm (NNTH); 20, (95% CI 13 to 100); eight studies, 984 infants]. There was no heterogeneity for this outcome for RR (P = 0.87; I(2) = 0%), but there was moderate heterogeneity for RD (P = 0.006; I(2) = 65%). The rates for mortality and other neonatal morbidities were not significantly changed by early EPO treatment nor were neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months in the small number of infants tested to-date. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of EPO reduces the use of RBC transfusions and the volume of RBCs transfused. These small reductions are of limited clinical importance. Donor exposure is probably not avoided since most studies included infants who had received RBC transfusions prior to trial entry. There was a significant increase in the rate of ROP (stage ≥ 3). Early EPO does not significantly decrease or increase any of the other important adverse outcomes. Ongoing research should deal with the issue of ROP and evaluate the current clinical practice that will limit donor exposure. Due to the limited benefits and the increased risk of ROP, early administration of EPO is not recommended. Evidence is lacking for the possible neuro protective role of EPO in preterm infants. This topic will be reviewed in separate Cochrane reviews for preterm and term and late preterm 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.269 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207