4.6 Review

Antenatal corticosteroids for neonates born before 25 Weeks-A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176090

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Efficacy of antenatal corticosteroids before 25 weeks of gestation is unclear. Objective To assess and compare neonatal outcomes following ANC exposure at 22, 23 and 24 weeks of gestation by conducting systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs reporting on neonatal outcomes after exposure to ANC up to 24(6) weeks of gestation using the Cochrane systematic review methodology. Databases Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central library, and online abstracts of conference proceedings including the Pediatric Academic Society (PAS) were searched in Feb 2017. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality defined as death before discharge during the first admission. Secondary outcomes included severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH> grade III and IV)/or periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC > stage II) and chronic lung disease (CLD). Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The level of evidence (LOE) was summarised using the GRADE guidelines. Main results There were no RCTs; 8 high quality non-RCTs were included in the review. Meta-analysis showed reduction in mortality [N = 10109; OR = 0.47(0.39-0.56), p< 0.00001; LOE: Moderate] and severe IVH and PVL [N = 5084; OR = 0.71(0.61-0.82), p< 0.00001; LOE: Low] after exposure to ANC in neonates born < 25 weeks. There was no significant difference in CLD [N = 4649; OR = 1.19(0.85-1.65) p = 0.31; LOE: Low] and NEC [N = 5403; OR = 0.95 (0.76-1.19) p = 0.65; LOE: Low]. Mortality was comparable in neonates born at 22, 23 or 24 weeks. Conclusion Moderate to low quality evidence indicates that exposure to ANC is associated with reduction in mortality and IVH/or PVL in neonates born before 25 weeks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据