Neonatal blood pressure by birth weight, gestational age, and postnatal age: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure is a vital hemodynamic marker during the neonatal period. However, normative values are often derived from small observational studies. Understanding the normative range would help to identify ideal thresholds for intervention to treat hypotension or hypertension. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess observed blood pressure values in neonates who have not received any blood-pressure modifying treatments from birth to three months postnatal age and whether these vary according to birth weight, gestational age and postnatal age. METHODS: This was a systematic review. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from 1946 to 2017 on blood pressure in neonates from birth to 3 months of age (PROSPERO ID CRD42018092886). Unpublished data were included where appropriate. RESULTS: Of 3,587 non-duplicate publications identified, 30 were included (one unpublished study). Twelve studies contained data grouped by birth weight, while 23 contained data grouped by gestational age. Study and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses thus results are presented by subgroup. A consistent blood pressure rise was associated with increasing birth weight, gestational age, and postnatal age. In addition, blood pressure seemed to rise more rapidly in the most preterm and low birth weight neonates. CONCLUSION: Despite blood pressure increasing with birth weight, gestational age, and postnatal age, there was marked blood pressure variability observed throughout. To better define hypotension and hypertension, future studies should develop consistent approaches for factors related to blood pressure variability, including the method and timing of measurement as well as statistical control of relevant patient characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".