Oral glucose gel in the prevention of neonatal hypoglycemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal hypoglycemia (NH) is the most prevalent metabolic disorder in neonates and glucose gel in oral solution is a relatively new treatment option for NH. We aimed to determine whether oral glucose gel can prevent NH. METHODS: We conducted an open literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We used relative risk as the statistical data, expressed each outcome effect as a 95% confidence interval, and conducted a heterogeneity test. If heterogeneity statistics indicated that I2 was ≥ 50%, the random effects model analysis was used; otherwise, the fixed effects model analysis was conducted, and sensitivity analyses were conducted for all outcomes. RESULTS: In this review, we included a total of 10 studies involving 4801 neonates. Meta-analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between the preventive oral glucose gel group and the control group in terms of blood glucose concentration, glucose concentration 30 minutes after the first breastfeeding, length of stay, Bayley-III composite score, subsequent need for intravenous injection of glucose, 24-hour glucose > 50 mg/dL, separation from mother for treatment of hypoglycemia/admitted to neonatal intensive care unit for hypoglycemia, normoglycemia after 1 to 2 treatments, or normoglycemia after more than 2 treatments, breastfeeding at discharge, delayed feeding, neurosensory impairment, parental satisfaction, developmental delay, and seizure. The subsequent intake was significantly lower in the glucose gel group compared to the control group. INTERPRETATION: The use of oral glucose gel as a preventative measure may not reduce the incidence of NH. In order to assess the efficacy of glucose gel in preventing NH, a more high-quality, large-sample, and rigorously designed randomized controlled trial is required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".