MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309761644 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100327

Respiratory function monitoring during neonatal resuscitation: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4309761644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersUniversità degli Studi di PadovaUniversity of AucklandUniversity of AlbertaTechnische Universität DresdenUniversidade Federal de São PauloUniversity of the Witwatersrand, JohannesburgStanford University
KeywordsNeonatal resuscitationResuscitationMedicineIntensive care medicineFunction (biology)Emergency medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.285 · 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