International Online Survey on the Management of Patent Ductus Arteriosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty and lack of consensus regarding optimal management of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). We aimed to determine current clinical practice in PDA management across a range of different regions internationally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed PDA management practices in neonatal intensive care units using a pre-piloted web-based survey, which was distributed to perinatal societies in 31 countries. The survey was available online from March 2018 to March 2019. RESULTS: There were 812 responses. The majority of clinicians (54%) did not have institutional protocols for PDA treatment, and 42% reported variable management within their own unit. Among infants <28 weeks (or <1,000 g), most clinicians (60%) treat symptomatically. Respondents in Australasia were more likely to treat PDA pre-symptomatically (44% vs. 18% all countries [OR 4.1; 95% CI 2.6-6.5; p < 0.001]), and respondents from North America were more likely to treat symptomatic PDA (67% vs. 60% all countries [OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5-2.6; p < 0.001]). In infants ≥28 weeks (or ≥1,000 g), most clinicians (54%) treat symptomatically. Respondents in North America were more likely to treat PDAs in this group of infants conservatively (47% vs. 38% all countries [OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.7-3.2; p < 0.001]), and respondents from Asia were more likely to treat the PDA pre-symptomatically (21% vs. 7% all countries [OR 5.5; 95% CI 3.2-9.8; p < 0.001]). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: There were marked international differences in clinical practice, highlighting ongoing uncertainty and a lack of consensus regarding PDA management. An international conglomeration to coordinate research that prioritises and addresses these areas of contention is indicated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".