MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982316797

I can see clearly now: Survey results from neonatal staff on mydriatic use in retinopathy or prematurity screening

2017· other· en· W6982316797 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOtago University Research Archive (University of Otago) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclopentolateMydriaticsTropicamidePupilRetinopathy of prematurityDrug administration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: 
\nVery preterm infants require mydriatic eye drops in preparation for retinopathy of prematurity examination. Mydriatic dosing needs to provide adequate pupil dilation for the examination and yet, avoid adverse effects. Although the relative frequency of mydriatic administration is high, there is no established or preferred mydriatic regimen in the Australia and New Zealand. 
\n
\nThe aim of surveying neonatal health care professionals is to establish the variation in mydriatic regimens and to estimate the frequency of common to rare adverse drug events after mydriatic administration.
\n
\nMethods: 
\nA questionnaire was emailed to selected nursing and management staff at Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU) listed in the Directory of NICU within Australia and New Zealand, 2017, the target survey participant being staff who administer the mydriatic eye drops during the retinopathy of prematurity eye examination. 
\n
\nResults: 
\nForty six neonatal staff from all major regions in Australia and New Zealand participated in the survey. The majority of participants were nursing staff who administered the mydriatics. Just over half of the staff prepare their own phenylephrine and cyclopentolate eye drops and approximately a quarter used either Cyclomydril® or a combination of phenylephrine and tropicamide.
\n
\nIn-house compounded phenylephrine, cyclopentolate and tropicamide eye drops were diluted in the majority of cases. Staff that used the proprietary product Cyclomydril® used it undiluted (90%). Fifty four percent of staff reported that they administered one set of drops, compared to 41% gave two sets of drops and 5% administered 3 drops. No staff member reported administering more than 3 drops.
\n
\nThe majority of staff administered a standard drop from the end of a minim or syringe (78%). A microdrop needle and an IV cannula (with the needle removed) were used to administer a microdrop in the remainder (22%).
\n
\nNeonatal staff reported seeing hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, apnoea, feed intolerance, abdominal distension, necrotising enterocolitis, death, seizure and skin blanching after mydriatic administration.
\n
\nConclusions:
\nThere is a wide variety of mydriatic combinations used in Australia and New Zealand and a range in frequency of adverse drug events seen after mydriatic administration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtago University Research Archive (University of Otago)Same topicReligious Freedom and DiscriminationFrench-language works237,207