ArticlePaediatrics & child health2017
Twenty-four-hour in-house neonatologist coverage and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From on-call to on-site: the impact of 24-hour in-house neonatology on billing patterns and physician productivity.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Introduction of 24 h Resident Consultant Cover in a Tertiary Neonatal Unit-Impact on Mortality and Clinical Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Reduction of severe intraventricular hemorrhage, a tertiary single-center experience: incidence trends, associated risk factors, and hospital policy.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare short- and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes at 3 years of corrected age of preterm infants cared for by 24-hour in-house staff neonatologists and those cared for by staff neonatologists during daytime only.
methodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected follow-up data on all nonanomalous preterm infants from 1998 to 2004 excluding year 2001 as a washout period. Infants were divided into two groups based on care provided by staff neonatologists: 24-hour in-house coverage (24-hour coverage 1998-2000) and daytime coverage (day coverage 2002-2004). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared.
resultsA total of 387 (78%) of the screened infants were included. Twenty-four-hour coverage (n=179) and day coverage (n=208) groups had a median birth weight (BW) of 875 g (range 470-1250) and 922 g (480-1530; P=0.028), respectively, and both had a median gestational age of 27 weeks. In the day coverage group, a smaller proportion of mothers had chorioamnionitis (20% vs. 30%; P=0.025), received less antibiotics (62% vs. 73%; P=0.023), and infants had fewer cases of confirmed sepsis (14% vs. 23%; P=0.022). In the day coverage group, a larger number of infants had respiratory distress syndrome (87% vs. 77%; P=0.011) and required prolonged mechanical ventilation (median 31 vs. 21 days; P=0.002). The incidence of major neurodevelopmental impairment was not significantly different between the two groups (odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.34-1.65).
conclusionsDuration of mechanical ventilation was reduced with 24-hour in-house coverage by staff neonatologists. However, 24-hour coverage was not associated with any difference in neurodevelopmental (ND) outcomes at 3-year corrected age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.