The efficacy of glycerin suppositories for preterm infants: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The effect of glycerin suppositories on full enteral feeds remained controversial in preterm infants, and thus we conducted this meta-analysis to identify the influence of glycerin suppositories on full enteral feeds in preterm infants. METHODS: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD20214283090). We searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO and Cochrane library databases through February 2020, and included randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of glycerin suppositories on full enteral feeds in preterm infants. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. RESULTS: Six Randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group in preterm infants, glycerin suppositories demonstrated no significant effect on days to full enteral feeds (mean difference = -0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.16 to 0.65; P = .58), the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (odd ratio = 3.62; 95% CI = 0.56-23.32; P = .18) or death (odd ratio = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.40-5.40; P = .57), but may increase the days under phototherapy (mean difference = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.43-0.57; P < .00001). Only low heterogeneity was seen among all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Glycerin suppositories may provide no additional benefits to preterm infants.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of budesonide and ambroxol hydrochloride inhalation in children with pneumonia and their effects on inflammatory response.

Childhood pneumonia, often caused by acute upper respiratory tract infections or bronchitis, is one of the leading causes of mortality in children. Nebulized inhalation, as a low-risk treatment method, has garnered significant attention. However, its effectiveness and safety remain controversial. In this study, a systematic review of relevant literature on the use of budesonide (BUD) and ambroxol hydrochloride (AMB) inhalation in the treatment of childhood pneumonia was conducted, and a total of 10 articles were included. The meta-analysis revealed an odds ratio (OR) of 1.61 and an I2 value of 0.00 % for the effectiveness of combined BUD and AMB inhalation therapy in children with pneumonia, indicating no heterogeneity among the studies in terms of effectiveness. The OR values for BUD or AMB inhalation in alleviating cough, lung auscultation abnormalities, respiratory distress, body temperature, and cyanosis of the lips in children with pneumonia all favored the combined BUD therapy, showing significant relief of the aforementioned symptoms. However, due to variations in drug dosage and administration methods, high heterogeneity was observed. This study suggested that combined BUD and AMB inhalation therapy has better efficacy in treating childhood pneumonia, and BUD combined with AMB inhalation is more effective in alleviating symptoms such as cough, lung auscultation abnormalities, respiratory distress, normalizing body temperature, and reducing cyanosis of the lips. Nevertheless, further validation is required due to the limited sample size and substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. To sum up, this study provides the first analysis of the efficacy and inflammatory response of BUD and AMB inhalation in children with pneumonia. Future research should aim to verify and clarify these findings, considering the limitations of the existing studies in terms of sample size and heterogeneity.

The efficacy of dopamine versus epinephrine for pediatric or neonatal septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of dopamine versus epinephrine for pediatric or neonatal septic shock remains controversial. We conduct a meta-analysis to explore the influence of dopamine versus epinephrine on shock reversal for pediatric or neonatal septic shock. METHODS: We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through July 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of dopamine versus epinephrine for pediatric or neonatal septic shock. RESULTS: Three RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall for pediatric or neonatal septic shock, dopamine and epinephrine reveal comparable shock reversal within 1 h (risk ratios (RR) = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.16 to 2.31; P = 0.47), mortality (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.55; P = 0.30), heart rate (standard mean differences (SMD) = 0.03; 95% CI = -0.28 to 0.34; P = 0.85), systolic blood pressure (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI = -0.69 to 0.33; P = 0.49), mean arterial pressure (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI = -1.64 to 1.34; P = 0.84) and adverse events (RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.07; P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Dopamine and epinephrine show the comparable efficacy for the treatment of pediatric or neonatal septic shock.