MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074205527

Enteral Feeding of Children on Noninvasive Respiratory Support:A Four-Center European Study∗

2021· article· en· W7074205527 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEdge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratory systemPositive airway pressureIntubationEnteral administrationContinuous positive airway pressureNasal cannulaAirwayCannula
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To explore enteral feeding practices and the achievement of energy targets in children on noninvasive respiratory support, in four European PICUs. Design: A four-center retrospective cohort study. Setting: Four PICUs: Bristol, United Kingdom; Lyon, France; Madrid, Spain; and Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Patients: Children in PICU who required acute noninvasive respiratory support in the first 7 days. The primary outcome was achievement of standardized kcal/goal. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 325 children were included (Bristol 104; Lyon 99; Madrid 72; and Rotterdam 50). The median (interquartile range) age and weight were 3 months (1-16 mo) and 5 kg (4-10 mo), respectively, with 66% admitted with respiratory failure. There were large between-center variations in practices. Overall, 190/325 (58.5%) received noninvasive respiratory support in order to prevent intubation and 41.5% after extubation. The main modes of noninvasive respiratory support used were high-flow nasal cannula 43.6%, bilevel positive airway pressure 33.2%, and continuous positive airway pressure 21.2%. Most children (77.8%) were fed gastrically (48.4% continuously) and the median time to the first feed after noninvasive respiratory support initiation was 4 hours (interquartile range, 1-9 hr). The median percentage of time a child was nil per oral while on noninvasive respiratory support was 4 hours (2-13 hr). Overall, children received a median of 56% (25-82%) of their energy goals compared with a standardized target of 0.85 of the recommended dietary allowance. Patients receiving step-up noninvasive respiratory support (p = < 0.001), those on bilevel positive airway pressure or continuous positive airway pressure (compared with high-flow nasal cannula) (p = < 0.001), and those on continuous feeds (p = < 0.001) achieved significantly more of their kcal goal. Gastrointestinal complications varied from 4.8 - 20%, with the most common reported being vomiting in 54/325 (16.6%), other complications occurred in 40/325 (12.3%) children, but pulmonary aspiration was rare 5/325 (1.5%). Conclusions: Children on noninvasive respiratory support tolerated feeding well, with relatively few complications, but prospective trials are now required to determine the optimal timing and feeding method for these children.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University)Same topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207