Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20008431›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2010

Pediatric specialists' beliefs about gastroesophageal reflux disease in premature infants.

Catherine A Golski, Ellen S Rome, Richard J Martin, Scott H Frank, Sarah Worley, Zhiyuan Sun, Anna Maria Hibbs

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Gastroesophageal reflux disease in children: What's new right now?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine A GolskiCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. golskic@email.chop.edu
Ellen S Rome
Richard J Martin
Scott H Frank
Sarah Worley
Zhiyuan Sun
Anna Maria Hibbs
Case Western Reserve University · USCleveland Clinic · USRainbow Babies & Children's Hospital · US

Funding

Gastrointestinal Risk Factors for Wheezing in Premature InfantsK23HD056299 · NICHD · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI HIBBS, ANNA MARIA · 2007 to 2011
$651k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD056299NICHD NIH HHS K23-HD056299
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWide variation exists in the treatment of suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in premature infants; it is unknown to what degree diagnosis and treatment are affected by the treating physician's medical specialty or interpretation of the medical literature.

methodsThis study involved an online survey of board-certified neonatologists, pediatric pulmonologists, and pediatric gastroenterologists about their beliefs regarding the symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of GERD in premature infants in the NICU on the basis of both clinical impression and interpretation of the literature.

resultsA total of 1021 neonatologists, 232 pediatric pulmonologists, and 222 pediatric gastroenterologists participated in the study (47.5% response rate). There was disagreement among specialists in nearly all aspects of the survey. Pulmonologists were most likely to report that respiratory symptoms are caused by GERD (P < .001). Neonatologists were least likely to report that a therapeutic trial of pharmacologic agents would be useful for diagnosing GERD (P < .001) or that lansoprazole, ranitidine, or cimetidine are safe or effective (P < .001). No pharmacologic therapy had >50% of respondents supporting its effectiveness. There was moderate correlation between physician belief based on the medical literature and belief based on clinical impression (Spearman rank correlation: 0.47-0.75). For therapies supported by multiple meta-analyses in infants versus therapies with few infant trials, physicians rated the evidence for effectiveness similarly.

conclusionsThere is wide variation among pediatric specialists regarding beliefs about GERD in premature infants, as well as about the weight of evidence in the medical literature for this patient population. Physician beliefs do not seem to be driven by the degree of evidence in the neonatal literature. With no agreed-on standard of care in the setting of widespread use of antireflux medications, greater understanding is needed about the ways physicians form clinical impressions, access and process medical evidence, and apply it to patient care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInfant, PrematureConfidence IntervalsCultureEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGastroenterologyGastroesophageal RefluxHealth Care SurveysHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalMaleNeonatologyPediatricsPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID20008431
PMCPMC2805060
OpenAlexW2066463669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.