MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ibuprofen for the treatment of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm and/or low birth weight infants

2013· reference-entry· en· W4360755604 on OpenAlexaff
Arne Ohlsson, Rajneesh Walia, Sachin S Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbuprofenMedicineDuctus arteriosusPlaceboConfidence intervalRelative riskAnesthesiaAdverse effectCochrane LibraryBirth weightRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePregnancyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Indomethacin is used as standard therapy to close a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) but is associated with reduced blood flow to several organs. Ibuprofen, another cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitor, may be as effective as indomethacin with fewer side effects. Objectives To determine the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen for closing a PDA in preterm and/or low birth weight infants. Seperate comparisons are presented for 1. ibuprofen (iv) compared with placebo; 2. ibuprofen (oral) compared with placebo; 3. ibuprofen (oral or iv) compared with other cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors (given iv or orally); 4. ibuprofen (oral) versus indomethacin (given iv or orally); 5. ibuprofen (oral) versus iv ibuprofen; 6. high dose versus standard dose of iv ibuprofen; 7. early versus expectant administration of iv ibuprofen. Search methods We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clincialtrials.gov, Controlled‐trials.com, www.abstracts2view.com/pas, and personal files in July 2012. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials of ibuprofen for the treatment of a PDA in newborn infants. Data collection and analysis Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Main results Twenty‐seven studies are included in this review. One study (n = 136) compared iv ibuprofen versus placebo. Ibuprofen reduced the composite outcome of infant deaths, infants who dropped out or required rescue treatment; risk ratio (RR) 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.89); risk difference (RD) ‐0.22 (95% CI ‐0.38 to ‐06); number needed to benefit (NNTB) 5 (95% CI 3 to 17). One study (n = 64) compared oral ibuprofen with placebo. There was a significant reduction in the failure rate to close a PDA; RR 0.26 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.62); RD ‐0.44 (95% CI ‐0.65 to ‐0.23); NNTB 2 (95% CI 2 to 4). Failure rates for PDA closure with ibuprofen (oral or iv) compared with indomethacin (oral or iv) was reported in 20 studies (n = 1019 infants). There was no significant difference between the groups; typical RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.20) I2 = 0%; typical RD ‐0.01 (95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.05); I2 = 0%. The risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) was reduced for ibuprofen (15 studies (n = 865); typical RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.99); typical RD ‐0.04 (95% CI ‐0.08 to ‐0.00; (P = 0.04); NNTB 25 (95% CI 13, infinity); I2 = 0%). The duration of ventilatory support was reduced with ibuprofen (oral or iv) compared with iv or oral indomethacin (six studies, n = 471) mean difference (MD) ‐2.35 days (95% CI ‐3.71 to ‐0.99); I2 = 19%. Failure rates for PDA closure with oral ibuprofen compared with indomethacin (oral or iv) were reported in seven studies (n = 189 infants). There was no significant difference between the groups; typical RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.29); typical RD ‐0.06 (95% CI ‐0.18 to 0.06). The risk of NEC was reduced with oral ibuprofen compared with indomethacin (oral or iv) six studies (n = 166); typical RR 0.44 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.82); RD ‐0.15 (95% CI ‐0.25 to ‐0.04); NNTB 7 (95% CI 4 to 25). There was no heterogeneity for this outcome. There was a decreased risk of failure to close a PDA with oral ibuprofen compared with iv ibuprofen, three studies (n = 236) typical RR 0.37 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.61); typical RD ‐0.24 (95% CI ‐0.35 to ‐0.13); NNTB 4 (95% CI 3 to 8). There was less evidence of transient renal insufficiency in infants who received ibuprofen compared with indomethacin. High dose versus standard dose of iv ibuprofen and early versus expectant administration of iv ibuprofen have only been studied in two trials. Authors' conclusions Ibuprofen is as effective as indomethacin in closing a PDA and reduces the risk of NEC and transient renal insufficiency. Given the reduction in NEC ibuprofen currently appears to be the drug of choice. Oro‐gastric administration of ibuprofen appears at least as effective as iv administration. Too few patients have been enrolled in studies assessing the effectiveness of a high dose of ibuprofen versus the standard dose and early versus expectant administration of ibuprofen to make recommendations. Studies are needed to evaluate the effect of ibuprofen compared with indomethacin treatment on longer‐term outcomes in infants with PDA.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations262
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207