MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhaled nitric oxide for respiratory failure in preterm infants

2010· reference-entry· en· W4252256576 on OpenAlexaff
Keith J. Barrington, Neil Finer

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchopulmonary dysplasiaCochrane LibraryRetinopathy of prematurityRandomized controlled trialRespiratory failurePediatricsPlaceboPopulationAnesthesiaInternal medicineGestational agePregnancyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is effective in term infants with hypoxic respiratory failure. The pathophysiology of respiratory failure and the potential risks of iNO differ substantially in preterm infants, necessitating study in this population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of treatment with iNO on death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and neurodevelopmental disability in preterm newborn infants with respiratory disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) were searched covering the years from 1985 to 2010. In addition, the abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized studies in preterm infants with respiratory disease that compared the effects of iNO gas to control, with or without placebo were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen randomized controlled trials of inhaled nitric oxide therapy in preterm infants were found. The trials have been grouped post hoc into three categories depending on entry criteria; entry in the first three days of life based on oxygenation criteria, routine use in preterm babies with pulmonary disease, and later enrolment based on an increased risk of BPD. No overall analyses were performed.Nine trials of early rescue treatment of infants based on oxygenation criteria demonstrated no significant effect of iNO on mortality or BPD. Three studies with routine use of iNO in infants with pulmonary disease also demonstrated no significant reduction in death or BPD [typical RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01)] although this small effect approached significance. Later treatment with iNO based on the risk of BPD (two trials) demonstrated no significant benefit for this outcome in analyses which are possible using summary data.There is no clear effect of iNO on the frequency of all grades of IVH or of severe IVH. Early rescue treatment was associated with a non-significant 20% increase in severe IVH.No effect on the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment was found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: iNO as rescue therapy for the very ill preterm infant does not appear to be effective. Early routine use of iNO in preterm infants with respiratory disease does not affect serious brain injury or improve survival without BPD. Later use of iNO to prevent BPD might be effective, but requires further study.

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)0.011
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations79
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207