ArticleBMJ open2024
Safety of different concentrations of glycerine enema for meconium evacuation in preterm infants: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVarious approaches are employed to expedite the passage of meconium in preterm infants within the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), with glycerine enemas being the most frequently used. Due to the potential risk of high osmolality-induced harm to the intestinal mucosa, diluted glycerine enema solutions are commonly used in clinical practice. The challenge lies in the current lack of knowledge regarding the safest and most effective concentration of glycerine enema. This research aims to ascertain the safety of different concentrations of glycerine enema solution in preterm infants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study protocol is for a single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, double-blind and non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Participants will be recruited from a NICU in a teriary class A hospital in China, and eligible infants will be randomly allocated to either the glycerine (mL): saline (mL) group in a 3:7 ratio or the 1:9 ratio group. The enema procedure will adhere to the standardised operational protocols. Primary outcomes encompass necrotising enterocolitis and rectal bleeding, while secondary outcomes encompass feeding parameters, meconium passage outcomes and splanchnic regional oxygen saturation. Analyses will compare the two trial arms based on an intention-to-treat allocation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2300079199.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.