MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arginine supplementation for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants

2004· reference-entry· en· W4246302510 on OpenAlexaff
Prakesh S. Shah, Vibhuti Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnterocolitisPediatricsNecrotizing enterocolitisInternal medicineGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immaturity, ischemia, and disturbances in gut mucosal integrity due to infections or hyperosmolar feeds are some of the suspected mechanisms in the development of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. Decreased concentration of nitric oxide is proposed as one of the possible cellular mechanisms for NEC. Plasma arginine concentrations were found to be lower in infants who developed NEC. Arginine can act as a substrate for the production of nitric oxide in the tissues and arginine supplementation may help in preventing NEC. OBJECTIVES: This review examines the efficacy and safety of arginine supplementation in decreasing the incidence of NEC among preterm neonates. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE (1966 - June 2004), EMBASE (1980 - June 2004), CINAHL (1982 - June 2004), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2004 of Cochrane Library) and abstracts from the annual meetings of the Society for Pediatric Research, American Pediatric Society and Pediatric Academic Societies published in Pediatric Research (1991-2004). No language restrictions were applied. STUDY DESIGN: randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials. POPULATION: preterm neonates. INTERVENTION: enteral or parenteral arginine supplementation (in addition to what an infant may be receiving from enteral or parenteral source), compared to placebo or no treatment; arginine administered orally or parenterally for at least 7 days in order to achieve adequate plasma arginine levels (145 umol/l). OUTCOMES: any of the following outcomes - NEC, death prior to discharge, death due to NEC, surgery for NEC, duration of total parenteral nutrition, plasma concentrations of arginine and glutamine at baseline and seven days after intervention, side effects of arginine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the information provided in the studies and by personal communication with the author. Data on relevant outcomes were extracted and the effect size was estimated and reported as relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Only one eligible study was identified. The methodological quality of the included study was good. There was a statistically significant reduction in the risk of developing NEC (any stage) in the arginine group compared with the placebo group (RR 0.24 [95% CI 0.10, 0.61], RD -0.21 [95% CI -0.32, -0.09]). No significant side effects directly attributable to arginine were observed. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The data are insufficient at present to support a practice recommendation. A multicentre randomized controlled study of arginine supplementation in preterm neonates is needed, focusing on the incidence of NEC, particularly stage 2 or 3.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207