MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392401854 · doi:10.1186/s13052-024-01613-0

Efficacy of home phototherapy versus inpatient phototherapy for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4392401854 on OpenAlex
Rui Li, Tingting Li, Xudong Yan, Jing Feng, Zhangbin Yu, Cheng Chen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œItalian Journal of Pediatrics/Italian journal of pediatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisSubgroup analysisCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialCohort studyCohortInternal medicineRelative riskMEDLINEPediatricsSystematic reviewConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Home phototherapy (HPT) remains a contentious alternative to inpatient phototherapy (IPT) for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. To guide evidence-based clinical decision-making, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and assessed the comparative risks and benefits of HPT and IPT. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform trial were searched from inception until June 2, 2023. We included RCTs and cohort studies and adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The outcome measures were phototherapy duration, daily bilirubin level reduction, exchange transfusion, hospital readmission, parental stress scale, and complications. We used fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis models, assessed heterogeneity ( I 2 ), conducted subgroup analyses, evaluated publication bias, and graded evidence quality. Results Nine studies (998 patients) were included (four RCTs, five cohort studies). HPT was associated with longer phototherapy duration (SMD = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.06–1.04, P = 0.03). Cohort study subgroup analysis yielded consistent results (SMD = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.11, P < 0.001, I 2 = 39%); the RCTs were not significantly different (SMD = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.08, P = 0.54, I 2 = 0%). Hospital readmission was higher with HPT (RR = 4.61; 95% CI: 1.43–14.86, P = 0.01). Daily bilirubin reduction (WMD = -0.12, 95% CI: -0.68 to 0.44, P = 0.68) or complications were not significantly different (RR = 2.29; 95% CI: 0.31–16.60, P = 0.41). The evidence quality was very low. HPT was associated with lower parental stress (SMD = -0.44, 95% CI: -0.71 to -0.16, P = 0.002). None of three included studies reported exchange transfusion. Conclusions The current evidence does not strongly support HPT efficacy for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, as high-quality data on long-term outcomes are scarce. Future research should prioritize well-designed, large-scale, high-quality RCTs to comprehensively assess HPT risks and benefits.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.013
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.302 · 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