Inotrope Use and the Risk of Intraventricular Hemorrhage in Preterm Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 40% of neonatal hypotension cases are managed with inotropes; however, recent evidence indicates that inotrope administration, rather than hypotension itself, is independently associated with an increased risk of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) after adjustment for confounding factors. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between inotrope use and the occurrence of IVH among preterm neonates. The study followed PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for case-control and cohort designs. Relevant data were extracted for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model based on adjusted odds ratios (aORs) reported in each study, and the results were presented as pooled aORs with 95% confidence intervals. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that inotrope use was significantly associated with a higher risk of IVH in preterm neonates, including IVH of any grade (pooled OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.25-3.29) and severe IVH (pooled OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.33-3.02). Overall, inotrope use doubled the risk of IVH (pooled OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.48-2.70). These findings emphasize the need for cautious and strictly indicated inotrope administration along with standardized hemodynamic management.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".