Assessment of Change in Practice of Routine Tracheal Suctioning Approach of Non-Vigorous Infants Born through Meconium-Stained Amniotic Fluid: A Pragmatic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Evidence outside Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The 2015 recommendation of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation of no routine tracheal suctioning in non-vigorous neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) was based on very low certainty of evidence (CoE) necessitating ongoing monitoring. The aim of this systematic review was to perform a meta-analysis of observational studies comparing the effect of implementing immediate resuscitation without routine tracheal suctioning versus with routine suctioning in neonates born through MSAF. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched. Observational studies with a before-and-after design were included. Two authors extracted data independently. CoE based on GRADE recommendations was performed. RESULTS: 13 studies were included. Clinical benefit or harm could not be excluded for the composite primary outcome of mortality or requirement of extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) (relative risk, 95% confidence interval: 0.74 [0.47-1.17]), and mortality (0.68 [0.42-1.11]). "Routine tracheal suctioning" epoch had possibly lesser risk of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) when compared to "no routine tracheal suctioning" epoch (0.68 [0.47-0.99]). "Routine tracheal suctioning" epoch also possibly had a lower risk of hospital admission for respiratory symptoms, requirement of non-invasive respiratory support, invasive mechanical ventilation, surfactant treatment, air leak, and low-flow oxygen therapy. Clinical benefit or harm could not be excluded for the outcome of mortality or ECMO among those diagnosed with MAS (1.09 [0.86-1.39]), but "routine tracheal suctioning" was possibly associated with lower risk of respiratory morbidities among those diagnosed with MAS. The CoE was very low for most of the outcomes evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the very low CoE for the outcomes evaluated, no definitive conclusions can be drawn warranting the need for additional studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.053 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".