Mucous fistula refeeding in neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Mucous fistula refeeding (MFR) aims to maximise bowel function when an ostomy is active after abdominal surgery, by introducing the proximal ostomy effluent into the distal mucous fistula to maintain intestinal physiology. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and complications of MFR in neonates following abdominal surgery. DESIGN, SETTING AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL were searched until June 2022 for studies including neonates with ostomy receiving MFR compared with neonates with ostomy without MFR. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was duration of parenteral nutrition. Secondary outcomes were time to full enteral feeds, rates of cholestasis, peak total serum bilirubin, sepsis, time to reanastomosis and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 16 observational studies were included (n=623). Compared with comparator group, neonates who received MFR had fewer days of parenteral nutrition (mean difference 37.17 days, 95% CI -63.91 to -10.4, n=244, 5 studies, GRADE: low). In addition, neonates who received MFR had lower rates of cholestasis, shorter time to reach full feeds and shorter hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Low certainty of evidence suggests that MFR is associated with shorter duration of parenteral nutrition in neonates following abdominal surgery and stoma creation. Results of ongoing and future randomised trials may help to corroborate these findings.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".