Use of NSAIDs and acetaminophen and risk of spontaneous intestinal perforations in premature infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acquired spontaneous intestinal perforation or SIP occurs most commonly in the extremely premature infant population. As the incidence is rising, understanding modifiable factors such as common medication exposures becomes important for individualizing care. Methods: The primary outcome was SIP in premature infants with exposure to indomethacin, ibuprofen, or acetaminophen. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Cochrane methodology and PRISMA guidelines. Results: The point estimates of three RCTs showed an increase in the risk of SIP with indomethacin exposure compared to no medication, the pooled estimate was not statistically significant. There is no statistically significant association between the risk of SIP for indomethacin with treatment use over prophylactic use and when holding feeds. Ibuprofen conferred less risk than indomethacin, and its route of administration did not alter the risk profile. There was not enough evidence to draw conclusions about the risk of SIP and acetaminophen exposure. Conclusion: In studies of infants exposed to either indomethacin or ibuprofen in the last 40 years, the incidence of SIP is still commonly within 2-8%. Moving forward modifiable factors such as medication exposure will help guide care to minimize risk where possible. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42017058603).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".