High doses of enteral docosahexaenoic acid omega-3 supplementation for prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in very preterm infants: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation in the neonatal period has been proposed to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in very preterm infants. We aim to determine the effects of an enteral supplementation with high doses of DHA on the risk for BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) in very preterm infants born less than 29 weeks' gestation compared with a control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov (up to 1 November 2021) as well as reference lists and citations of included articles and previous reviews. RCTs targeting infants born less than 29 weeks' gestation and evaluating the effect of high doses of DHA enteral supplementation in the neonatal period compared with a control will be eligible. Primary outcome will be BPD defined as the need for oxygen and/or ventilation at 36 weeks' PMA. Two authors will independently screen for inclusion, extract data and assess data quality using the Cochrane instrument (risk-of-bias tool 2.0). We will perform meta-analysis using random effects models. Prespecified subgroup analyses are planned for the infant gestational age and sex, the marine source of DHA, mode of administration and duration of exposure. Sensitivity analysis will be performed according to the accuracy of the BPD definition (ie, physiological definition) and according to the risk of bias of the RCTs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis does not require ethics approval, as no primary data are collected. This study will assess the effectiveness of high doses of enteral DHA supplementation on BPD and provide evidence to clinicians and families for decision-making. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, media interviews and publications to peer review journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021286705.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".