Predictors of Feeding Tube Placement in Infants with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The early stages of life pose feeding challenges for infants with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH), necessitating feeding tube placement to prevent growth failure. Predicting the factors prompting this intervention has yielded inconclusive findings in prior research. Thus, this review explored prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal variables associated with feeding tube placement in CDH. Retrospective cohort or case-control reporting outcomes linked to prenatal, antenatal or postnatal predictors of feeding tube placement were included, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Reports, case series, conference abstracts, book sections, commentary, reviews, and editorials were excluded. Database searches were conducted in August 2023 encompassed Cochrane, MEDLINE, ProQuest, Wiley, and Google Scholar. Quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Review Manager 5.4 performed meta-analysis. Within eight studies, four exhibited a low risk of bias and the other was categorized as moderate. Analysis revealed significant effects for liver herniation (OR = 3.24, 95%CI 1.64-6.39, P = 0.0007), size of herniated defects classified as C or D (OR = 7.12, 95%CI 3.46-14.65, P < 0.00001), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation treatment (ECMO) (OR = 6.05, 95%CI 4.51-8.12, P < 0.00001), and patch repair (OR = 5.07, 95%CI 3.89-6.62, P < 0.00001). ECMO treatment and patch repair surgery are robust predictors of feeding tube placement in CDH infants. Although liver herniation and size of herniated defect also showed associations, further studies are needed to address heterogeneity concerns. The review was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42023480109. No funding was received.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".