Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28515184›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Trends and population-attributable risk estimates for predictors of early neonatal mortality in Nigeria, 2003-2013: a cross-sectional analysis.

Osita Kingsley Ezeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

1 author.

Osita Kingsley EzehSchool of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess trends in early neonatal mortality (ENM) and population-attributable risk (PAR) estimates for predictors of ENM in Nigeria. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsA cross-sectional data on 63 844 singleton live births within the preceding 5 years from the 2003, 2008 and 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Surveys were used. Adjusted PARs were used to estimate the number of early neonatal deaths attributable to each predictor in the final multivariable Cox regression model.

main outcome measuresENM, defined as the death of a live-born singleton between birth and 6 days of life.

resultsThe ENM rate slightly declined from 30.5 (95% CI 26.1 to 34.9) to 26.1 (CI 24.3 to 27.9) during the study period. Approximately 36 746 (CI 14 656 to 56 920) and 37 752 (CI 23 433 to 51 126) early neonatal deaths were attributable to rural residence and male sex, respectively. Other significant predictors of ENM included small neonates (attributable number: 25 884, CI 19 172 to 31 953), maternal age <20 years (11 708, CI 8521 to 17 042), caesarean section (6312, CI 4260 to 8521) and birth order ≥4 with a short birth interval (≤2 years) (18 929, CI 12 781 to 25 563)).

conclusionsTo improve early neonatal survival in Nigeria, community-based interventions are needed for small neonates, and to promote delayed first pregnancy, child spacing and timely referral for sick male neonates and caesarean delivery.

Indexed as

Live BirthPerinatal DeathRisk AssessmentAdolescentAdultBirth IntervalsBirth OrderCesarean SectionCross-Sectional StudiesDemographyFemaleHumansInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornMaledeathearly neonatal mortalityinfantneonatesNigeria

Identifiers

PMID28515184
PMCPMC5623451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.