MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interventions to Reduce Severe Brain Injury Risk in Preterm Neonates

2023· review· en· W4365442627 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Razak, Waseemoddin Patel, Naveed Ur Rehman Durrani, Abdul K. Pullattayil

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQatar National LibraryMonash University
KeywordsMedicineNumber needed to treatRelative riskRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisAbsolute risk reductionIntraventricular hemorrhagePsychological interventionPeriventricular leukomalaciaPediatricsInternal medicinePregnancyGestational ageConfidence intervalPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Interventions to reduce severe brain injury risk are the prime focus in neonatal clinical trials. Objective: To evaluate multiple perinatal interventions across clinical settings for reducing the risk of severe intraventricular hemorrhage (sIVH) and cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL) in preterm neonates. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched from inception until September 8, 2022, using prespecified search terms and no language restrictions. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated perinatal interventions, chosen a priori, and reported 1 or more outcomes (sIVH, cPVL, and severe brain injury) were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two co-authors independently extracted the data, assessed the quality of the trials, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis was used for data synthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified outcomes were sIVH, cPVL, and severe brain injury. Results: A total of 221 RCTs that assessed 44 perinatal interventions (6 antenatal, 6 delivery room, and 32 neonatal) were included. Meta-analysis showed with moderate certainty that antenatal corticosteroids were associated with small reduction in sIVH risk (risk ratio [RR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.35-0.82]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -1% [95% CI, -2% to 0%]; number needed to treat [NNT], 80 [95% CI, 48-232]), whereas indomethacin prophylaxis was associated with moderate reduction in sIVH risk (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.52-0.79]; ARD, -5% [95% CI, -8% to -3%]; NNT, 20 [95% CI, 13-39]). Similarly, the meta-analysis showed with low certainty that volume-targeted ventilation was associated with large reduction in risk of sIVH (RR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.36-0.72]; ARD, -9% [95% CI, -13% to -5%]; NNT, 11 [95% CI, 7-23]). Additionally, early erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57-0.83]; ARD, -3% [95% CI, -4% to -1%]; NNT, 34 [95% CI, 22-67]) and prophylactic ethamsylate (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.48-0.97]; ARD, -4% [95% CI, -7% to 0%]; NNT, 26 [95% CI, 13-372]) were associated with moderate reduction in sIVH risk (low certainty). The meta-analysis also showed with low certainty that compared with delayed cord clamping, umbilical cord milking was associated with a moderate increase in sIVH risk (RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.03-3.21]; ARD, 3% [95% CI, 0%-6%]; NNT, -30 [95% CI, -368 to -16]). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that a few interventions, including antenatal corticosteroids and indomethacin prophylaxis, were associated with reduction in sIVH risk (moderate certainty), and volume-targeted ventilation, early erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and prophylactic ethamsylate were associated with reduction in sIVH risk (low certainty) in preterm neonates. However, clinicians should carefully consider all of the critical factors that may affect applicability in these interventions, including certainty of the evidence, before applying them to clinical practice.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations43
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207