MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392787695 · doi:10.21037/tp-23-465

Summary of the best evidence for the prevention of nasal injury in preterm infants with nasal noninvasive ventilation

2024· article· en· W4392787695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y Y Fu, Xiaoqin Li, Youxia Yu, Renfeng Li, Tian Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Pediatrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewMEDLINENiceBest practiceIntensive care medicineSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Due to immaturity, the nose of preterm infants can easily be injured, by even a short application of a nasal device. However, 20% to 60% of preterm infants suffer nasal damage while using nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) due to weak skin tissue, prolonged use of nasal device, and improper nursing practices, leading to increased risk of infection and decreased compliance and tolerance. In this study, we retrieved, obtained and integrated the related evidences of prevention of nasal injury in premature infants with nasal noninvasive ventilation to provide reference for clinical practice. Methods: We searched the relevant guidelines, expert consensus, evidence summaries and systematic reviews in the databases and guideline websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), the Agency for Health care Research and Quality (AHRQ), Guidelines International Network (GIN), the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline websites, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RANO), Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN), European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP), Yi Maitong, British Medical Journal best-practice, Cochrane Library, UpToDate, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang. The search was limited to the time of library establishment to February 2023. Results: In total, 16 articles were included, including six guidelines, three expert consensuses, two evidence summaries and five systematic reviews. Twenty-eight pieces of evidence were summarized from six aspects: risk assessment, ventilation and connection, skin protection, skin assessment, training and support, and continuous quality improvement. Conclusions: This study summarized the best evidence for the prevention of nasal injury in premature infants through nasal noninvasive ventilation. It is suggested that nurses should consider the actual clinical situation when applying the suggestions from the evidence, formulate corresponding nursing measures, and reduce the occurrence of nasal injury in premature infants.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational PediatricsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207