Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29212522›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

A systematic review of neonatal treatment intensity scores and their potential application in low-resource setting hospitals for predicting mortality, morbidity and estimating resource use.

Jalemba Aluvaala, Gary S Collins, Michuki Maina, James A Berkley, Mike English

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. 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

5 authors.

Jalemba AluvaalaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya. jaluvaala@kemri-wellcome.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0851-3711
Gary S CollinsCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Michuki MainaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
James A BerkleyKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mike EnglishKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P.O Box 43640 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M015386/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 092654Wellcome Trust 097170
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment intensity scores can predict mortality and estimate resource use. They may therefore be of interest for essential neonatal care in low resource settings where neonatal mortality remains high. We sought to systematically review neonatal treatment intensity scores to (1) assess the level of evidence on predictive performance in predicting clinical outcomes and estimating resource utilisation and (2) assess the applicability of the identified models to decision making for neonatal care in low resource settings.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL, Global Health Library (Global index, WHO) and Google Scholar to identify studies published up until 21 December 2016. Included were all articles that used treatments as predictors in neonatal models. Individual studies were appraised using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). In addition, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used as a guiding framework to assess certainty in the evidence for predicting outcomes across studies.

resultsThree thousand two hundred forty-nine articles were screened, of which ten articles were included in the review. All of the studies were conducted in neonatal intensive care units with sample sizes ranging from 22 to 9978, with a median of 163. Two articles reported model development, while eight reported external application of existing models to new populations. Meta-analysis was not possible due heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of the identified studies. Discrimination as assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic curve was reported for in-hospital mortality, median 0.84 (range 0.75-0.96, three studies), early adverse outcome and late adverse outcome (0.78 and 0.59, respectively, one study).

conclusionExisting neonatal treatment intensity models show promise in predicting mortality and morbidity. There is however low certainty in the evidence on their performance in essential neonatal care in low resource settings as all studies had methodological limitations and were conducted in intensive care. The approach may however be developed further for low resource settings like Kenya because treatment data may be easier to obtain compared to measures of physiological status. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016034205.

Indexed as

HospitalsDeveloping CountriesGlobal HealthHealth ResourcesHospital MortalityHumansInfantInfant MortalityIntensive Care, NeonatalIntensive Care Units, NeonatalOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesCHARMSNeonatal prognosisPrediction modelTreatment intensity

Identifiers

PMID29212522
PMCPMC5719732

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.