Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29132459›Full record

ArticleZhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics2017

[Short-term clinical outcomes of neonates of secundiparous mothers: a single-center cohort study].

Ai-Juan Yang, Ke-Ping Cheng, Xiao-Lu Ma, Li-Zhong DU

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ai-Juan YangDepartment of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Children's Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310052, China. dulizhong@zju.edu.cn.
Ke-Ping Cheng
Xiao-Lu Ma
Li-Zhong DU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the short-term clinical outcomes of neonates of secundiparous mothers, and to provide a reference for the clinical practice after the change in birth policy.

methodsA cohort study was performed for the parturients and their neonates born in Yongkang Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital in Zhejiang, China between June 2015 and April 2016. According to the parity of the mother, the neonates were divided into primiparous group and secundiparous group. The short-term clinical outcomes of neonates were compared between the two groups.

resultsA total of 4 091 neonates who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled, and there were 2 023 neonates in the primiparous group and 2 068 in the secundiparous group. In the secundiparous group, most mothers (57.16%) were aged 26-34 years, and 16.49% were aged above 35 years. Compared with the primiparous group, the secundiparous group had a significantly higher rate of births by cesarean section (42.55% vs 25.06%; P<0.05). The percentages of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS; 8.6% vs 3.4%) and transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN; 7.2% vs 2.6%; P<0.05) in hospitalized neonates from the secundiparous group were significantly higher than in those from the primiparous group.

conclusionsElderly parturient women are not the major population of secundiparous parturients. The neonates of secundiparous mothers have a higher rate of births by cesarean section, which might be associated with increased percentages of NRDS and TTN in hospitalized neonates from the secundiparous mothers.

Indexed as

ParityAdultCesarean SectionCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornTachypnea

Identifiers

PMID29132459
PMCPMC7389324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.