Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796361›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Prophylactic methylxanthine for preventing of apnea in preterm infants.

D J Henderson-Smart, P A Steer

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Methylxanthine treatment for apnoea in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  3. Prophylactic methylxanthine for prevention of apnoea in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  4. Postoperative caffeine for preventing apnea in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2000
    Pooled it
  5. Caffeine therapy in preterm infants.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2015
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Apnea in the newborn.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2001
    Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

D J Henderson-SmartNSW Centre for Perinatal Health Services Research, Queen Elizabeth II Institute for Mothers and Infants, Building DO2, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2006. dhs@mail.usyd.edu.au
P A Steer
Queensland Health · AUUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecurrent apnea is common in preterm infants, particularly at very early gestational ages. These episodes of loss of effective breathing can lead to hypoxemia and bradycardia which may be severe enough to require resuscitation including use of positive pressure ventilation. In infants with apnea, methylxanthines have been successful as treatment to prevent further episodes. It is possible that prophylactic therapy, given to all very preterm infants from soon after birth, might prevent apnea and its associated hypoxemia and bradycardia.

objectivesIn preterm infants, does prophylactic treatment with methylxanthine lead to less apnea, bradycardia, episodes of hypoxemia and use of mechanical ventilation, without clinically important side effects? SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching mainly in the English language. A search of MEDLINE was made in October 1998 covering the years 1966 -1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials utilising random or quasi-random patient allocation, in which prophylactic methylxanthine (caffeine or theophylline) was compared with placebo or no treatment were eligible. Outcomes sought included the rate of apnea, bradycardia, hypoxemic episodes, use of IPPV, side effects such as tachycardia or feed intolerance, as well as longer term abnormal growth and development. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group were used. The methodological quality of each trial was reviewed independently by each author. Each reviewer extracted data separately, then results were compared and differences resolved. The standard method of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used to analyze the data, utilizing relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD). MAIN

resultsTwo studies examining a total of 104 infants were found. Both studied the effects of prophylactic caffeine. There were no meaningful differences between the caffeine and placebo groups in the number of infants with apnea, bradycardia, hypoxemic episodes, use of IPPV or side effects in either of the studies. Only two outcomes (use of IPPV and tachycardia) were common to the two studies and meta-analysis showed no substantive differences between the groups. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe results of this review do not support the use of prophylactic caffeine for preterm infants at risk of apnea, bradycardia or hypoxemic episodes. Any future studies need to examine the effects of prophylactic methylxanthines in preterm infants at higher risk of apnea, bradycardia or hypoxemic episodes. This should include examination of important clinical outcomes such as need for IPPV, length of hospital stay and long term development.

Indexed as

ApneaCentral Nervous System StimulantsHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Premature, DiseasesXanthinesCentral Nervous System StimulantsmethylxanthineXanthines

Identifiers

PMID10796361
OpenAlexW2087690904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.