Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21501429›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2011

Neonatal resuscitation and immediate newborn assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths: a systematic review, meta-analysis and Delphi estimation of mortality effect.

Anne C C Lee, Simon Cousens, Stephen N Wall, Susan Niermeyer, Gary L Darmstadt, Waldemar A Carlo, William J Keenan, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Christopher Gill, Joy E Lawn

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 183 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
27.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

183 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 494 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Anne C C LeeDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Simon Cousens
Stephen N Wall
Susan Niermeyer
Gary L Darmstadt
Waldemar A Carlo
William J Keenan
Zulfiqar A Bhutta
Christopher Gill
Joy E Lawn
Aga Khan University · PKBill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USBoston University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSaint Louis University · USSave the Children · BDSave the Children · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Colorado Boulder · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOf 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously "birth asphyxia") and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published.

objectiveTo estimate the mortality effect of immediate newborn assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births.

methodsWe conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size.

resultsWe identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate newborn assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate newborn assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths.

conclusionNeonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and newborn assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts.

fundingThis work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueInfant MortalityResuscitationAsphyxia NeonatorumHome ChildbirthHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningPhysical StimulationPremature BirthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID21501429
PMCPMC3231885
OpenAlexW2142917328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.