Non-operative interventions for Pierre-Robin sequence: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pierre-Robin Sequence (PRS) is a sequence of micrognathia, glossoptosis, and airway obstruction. There is no standardized consensus on the management of respiratory distress for patients with PRS, and operative interventions have associated complications. The purpose of this study is to identify all modalities of non-operative airway intervention for PRS infants. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, EMCARE, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched from 1992 to 2022 reporting on PRS infants under one year of age who were managed non-operatively. Publications with non-original research designs, an exclusive focus on surgical interventions, case reports, and non-English language articles were excluded. Analysis was performed using non-pooled and pooled proportions (PP). 3280 abstracts were screened, and 88 articles included. Retrospective methodologies were most common. Of the 60 studies where both operative and non-operative interventions were included, 2924 of 4708 PRS infants were administered a non-operative intervention (PP 65.8 % [95%CI 58.5, 72.7]). Reported definitive non-operative interventions, either alone or in combination with another non-operative intervention, included infant positioning (n = 1664), orthodontic appliances (n = 1299), nasopharyngeal tube insertion (n = 983), supplemental oxygen (n = 306), non-invasive ventilation (n = 290), oral airway (n = 46), endotracheal intubation (n = 36), and other (n = 40). The mean MINORS risk of bias score was 6.3 (range 1-12), indicating that the present review was limited by moderate methodological quality for included studies. This is the largest systematic review of non-operative interventions for PRS infants thus far. Most infants are managed non-operatively, with positioning, orthodontic appliances, and nasopharyngeal tubes being the most commonly reported modalities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".