Evaluating Clinical Outcomes and Physiological Perspectives in Studies Investigating Respiratory Support for Babies Born at Term With or at Risk of Transient Tachypnea: A Narrative Review

Respiratory distress in the first few hours of life is a growing disease burden in otherwise healthy babies born at term (>37 weeks gestation). Babies born by cesarean section without labor (i.e., elective cesarean section) are at greater risk of developing respiratory distress due to elevated airway liquid volumes at birth. These babies are commonly diagnosed with transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) and historically treatments have mostly focused on enhancing airway liquid clearance pharmacologically or restricting fluid intake with limited success. Alternatively, a number of clinical studies have investigated the potential benefits of respiratory support in newborns with or at risk of TTN, but there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. A literature search identified eight clinical studies investigating use of respiratory support on outcomes related to TTN in babies born at term. Study demographics including gestational age, mode of birth, antenatal corticosteroid exposure, TTN diagnosis, timing of intervention (prophylactic/interventional), respiratory support (type/interface/device/pressure), and study outcomes were compared. This narrative review provides an overview of factors within and between studies assessing respiratory support for preventing and/or treating TTN. In addition, we discuss the physiological understanding of how respiratory support aids lung function in newborns with elevated airway liquid volumes at birth. However, many questions remain regarding the timing of onset, pressure delivered, device/interface used and duration, and weaning of support. Future studies are required to address these gaps in knowledge to provide evidenced based recommendations for management of newborns with or at risk of TTN

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions

Objective: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. Study design and setting: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. Results: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. Conclusion: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved