MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Metoclopramide, thickened feedings, and positioning for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children under two years

2004· review· en· W4247318791 on OpenAlexaff
William Craig, Ana Hanlon‐Dearman, Chris Sinclair, Shayne Taback, Michael Moffatt

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonWithdrawn as Out of Date;
Date5/12/2010 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGastro-MetoclopramideRefluxMedicinePediatricsInternal medicineGastroenterologyVomitingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) is the refluxing of gastric contents into the esophagus. Fifty per cent of all infants 0 to 3 months regurgitate at least once a day. This drops to 5% once infants are 10 to 12 months old. Three per cent of parents of 10 to 12 month old infants view this as a problem. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of thickened feeds, positioning, and metoclopramide as compared to placebo in improving the outcome of GER in developmentally normal infants aged one month to two years. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 23 January 2003), EMBASE (January 1985 to 27 January 2003), and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies (parallel or cross over) which evaluated thickened feeds, positional alternations or metoclopramide for the treatment of GER in children between the age of one month and two years who were developmentally normal. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials involving 771 children met the inclusion criteria: eight dealt with thickened feeds, five with positioning, and seven with metoclopramide. Few comparisons could be made, and so summary measures were often made with two or three studies. Thickened feeds reduce the regurgitation severity score (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.94;95% confidence interval -1.35 to -0.52), as well as the frequency of emesis (SMD -0.91; confidence interval -1.22 to -0.61). The reflux index was not reduced (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.48%; 95% confidence interval-3.27 to 4.23). All five positioning studies utilized esophageal pH monitoring as their outcome measure. Elevating the head of the crib for treating reflux in the supine position is not justifiable. The seven metoclopramide studies used a variety of outcomes. Compared to placebo, metoclopramide appears to reduce daily symptoms ( SMD -0.73; 95% confidence interval -1.16 to -0.30), and reduce the reflux index (WMD -2.80%; 95% confidence interval -5.58 to -0.01). It does increase side effects. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Thickened feeds are helpful in reducing the symptoms of GER. Elevating the head of the crib in the supine position does not have any effect. Metoclopramide may have some benefit in comparison to placebo in the symptomatic treatment for GER, but that must be weighed against possible side effects. .

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.016
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.397
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations90
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207