Respiratory function monitoring during neonatal resuscitation: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Positive pressure ventilation via a facemask is critical in neonatal resuscitation, but frequently results in mask leak, obstruction, and inadequate respiratory support. This systematic review aimed to determine whether the display of respiratory function monitoring improved resuscitation or clinical outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes when respiratory function monitoring was displayed versus not displayed for newborns requiring positive pressure ventilation at birth were selected and from databases (last search August 2022), and assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools for randomized control trials. The study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Treatment recommendations were approved by the Neonatal Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Results reported primary and secondary outcomes and included resuscitation and clinical outcomes. Results: Of 2294 unique articles assessed for eligibility, three randomized controlled trials were included (observational studies excluded) (n = 443 patients). For predefined resuscitation and clinical outcomes, these studies either did not report the primary outcome (time to heart rate ≥ 100 bpm from birth), had differing reporting methods (achieving desired tidal volumes, significant mask leak) or did not find significant differences (intubation rate, air leaks, death before hospital discharge, severe intraventricular hemorrhage, chronic lung disease). Limitations included limited sample size for critical outcomes, inconsistent definitions amongst studies and unreported long-term outcomes. Conclusion: Although respiratory function monitoring has been utilized in clinical care, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest its benefit for newborn infants receiving respiratory support for resuscitation at birth. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021278169 (registered November 27, 2021). Funding: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation provided support that included access to software platforms and teleconferencing.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".