ReviewArchives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition2006
Pinching, electrocution, ravens' beaks, and positive pressure ventilation: a brief history of neonatal resuscitation.
Review in Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 431 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lower versus higher oxygen concentrations titrated to target oxygen saturations during resuscitation of preterm infants at birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Nine is the New Ten of Apgar Scores: An Observational Retrospective Cohort Study.The Journal of pediatrics · 2024Observational
- Design and Analysis of a Low-Cost Electronically Controlled Mobile Ventilator, Incorporating Mechanized AMBU Bag, for Patients during COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- From mouth-to-mouth to bag-valve-mask ventilation: evolution and characteristics of actual devices--a review of the literature.BioMed research international · 2014Review
- Delivery room management of the meconium-stained newborn.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since ancient times many different methods have been used to revive newborns. Although subject to the vagaries of fashion for 2000 years, artificial respiration has been accepted as the mainstay of neonatal resuscitation for about the last 40. Formal teaching programmes have evolved over the last 20 years. The last 10 years have seen international collaboration, which has resulted in careful evaluation of the available evidence and publication of recommendations for clinical practice. There is, however, little evidence to support current recommendations, which are largely based on expert opinion. The challenge for neonatologists today is to gather robust evidence to support or refute these recommendations, thereby refining this common and important intervention.
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.