Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26625905›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

Neonatal near miss: a systematic review.

Juliana P Santos, Cynthia Pileggi-Castro, Jose S Camelo, Antonio A Silva, Pablo Duran, Suzanne J Serruya, Jose G Cecatti

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Morbidity and mortality of newborns born to immigrant and nonimmigrant females residing in low-income neighbourhoods.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Neonatal near miss: A review of current definitions and the need for standardisation.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Juliana P SantosDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. jupfsantos@hotmail.com.
Cynthia Pileggi-CastroDepartment of Pediatrics, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. cynthiapileggi@gmail.com.
Jose S CameloDepartment of Pediatrics, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. jscamelo@fmrp.usp.br.
Antonio A SilvaDepartment of Public Health, Federal University of Maranhão, Sao Luis, Brazil. aasilva@elo.com.br.
Pablo DuranLatin American Center of Perinatology (CLAP), Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), Montevideo, Uruguay. duranp@clap.ops-oms.org.
Suzanne J SerruyaLatin American Center of Perinatology (CLAP), Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), Montevideo, Uruguay. serruyas@clap.ops-oms.org.
Jose G CecattiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. cecatti@unicamp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of neonatal near miss has been proposed as a tool for assessment of quality of care in neonates who suffered any life-threatening condition. However, there are no internationally agreed concepts or criteria for defining or identifying neonatal near miss. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of studies and markers that are able to identify neonatal near miss cases and predict neonatal mortality.

methodsElectronic searches were performed in the Medline, Embase and Scielo databases, with no time or language restriction, until December 2014. The term "neonatal near miss" was used alone or in combination with terms related to neonatal morbidity/mortality and neonatal severity scores. Study selection criteria involved three steps: title, abstract and full text of the articles. Two researchers performed study selection and data extraction independently. Heterogeneity of study results did not permit the performance of meta-analysis.

resultsFollowing the inclusion and exclusion criteria adopted, only four articles were selected. Preterm and perinatal asphyxia were used as near miss markers in all studies. Health indicators on neonatal morbidity and mortality were extracted or estimated. The neonatal near miss rate was 2.6 to 8 times higher than the neonatal mortality rate.

conclusionsPragmatic and management criteria are used to help develop the neonatal near miss concept. The most severe cases are identified and mortality is predicted with these criteria. Furthermore, the near miss concept can be used as a tool for evaluating neonatal care. It is the first step in building management strategies to reduce mortality and long-term sequelae.

Indexed as

Infant MortalityAsphyxia NeonatorumFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMorbidityNear Miss, HealthcarePregnancyPrognosisWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID26625905
PMCPMC4667407

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.