MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318831242 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1760386

Long-Term Outcomes of Multiple versus a Single Course of Antenatal Steroids: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4318831242 on OpenAlexaff
Kiran Ninan, Sugee K. Liyanage, Kellie E. Murphy, Elizabeth Asztalos, Sarah D. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsRandomizationOdds ratioConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialCohort studyLow birth weightCohortPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple courses versus a single course of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) have been associated with mild respiratory benefits but also adverse outcomes like smaller head circumference and birth weight. Long-term effects warrant study. We systematically reviewed long-term outcomes (≥1 year) in both preterm and term birth after exposure to preterm multiple courses (including a rescue dose or course) versus a single course. We searched seven databases from January 2000 to October 2021. We included follow-up studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with births occurring in/after the year 2000, given advances in perinatal care. Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, articles, quality, and outcomes including psychological disorders, neurodevelopment, and anthropometry. Six follow-up studies of three RCTs and two cohort studies (over 2,860 children total) met inclusion criteria. Among children born preterm, randomization to multiple courses versus a single course of ACS was not associated with adjusted beneficial or adverse neurodevelopmental/psychological or other outcomes, but data are scant after a rescue dose (120 and 139 children, respectively, low certainty) and nonexistent after a rescue course. For children born at term (i.e., 27% of the multiple courses of ACS 5-year follow-up study of 1,728 preterm/term born children), preterm randomization to multiple courses (at least one additional course) versus a single course was significantly associated with elevated odds of neurosensory impairment (adjusted odds ratio = 3.70, 95% confidence interval: 1.57-8.75; 212 and 247 children, respectively, moderate certainty). In this systematic review of long-term outcomes after multiple courses versus a single course of ACS, there were no significant benefits or risks regarding neurodevelopment in children born preterm but little data after one rescue dose and none after a rescue course. However, multiple courses (i.e., at least one additional course) should be considered cautiously: after term birth, there are no long-term benefits but neurosensory harms. KEY POINTS: · We systematically reviewed the long-term impact of multiple versus a single course of ACS.. · Long-term follow-up data were scant after a rescue dose and absent after one rescue course of ACS.. · In children born preterm, multiple courses of ACS were not associated with long-term benefits/harms.. · In children born at term, multiple courses of ACS were associated with neurosensory impairment.. · Preterm administration of multiple courses of ACS should be considered cautiously..

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207