Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29637172›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2017

Impact of neonatal resuscitation trainings on neonatal and perinatal mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Archana Patel, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Kunal Kurhe, Savita Bhargava, Akash Bang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Archana PatelLata Medical Research Foundation, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Mahalaqua Nazli KhatibDivision of Evidence Synthesis; School of Epidemiology and Public Health & Department of Physiology, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, Maharashtra, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5875-8277
Kunal KurheLata Medical Research Foundation, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Savita BhargavaLata Medical Research Foundation, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Akash BangDepartment of Paediatrics, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sewagram, Maharashtra, India.
Lata Medical Research Foundation · INDatta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research · INMahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining of birth attendants in neonatal resuscitation is likely to reduce birth asphyxia and neonatal mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of neonatal resuscitation training (NRT) programme in reducing stillbirths, neonatal mortality, and perinatal mortality.

methodsWe considered studies where any NRT was provided to healthcare personnel involved in delivery process and handling of newborns. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ERIC and other electronic databases. We also searched ongoing trials and bibliographies of the retrieved articles, and contacted experts for unpublished work. We undertook screening of studies and assessment of risk of bias in duplicates. We performed review according to Cochrane Handbook. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

resultsWe included 20 trials with 1 653 805 births in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of NRT versus control shows that NRT decreases the risk of all stillbirths by 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.41), 7-day neonatal mortality by 47% (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73), 28-day neonatal mortality by 50% (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.68) and perinatal mortality by 37% (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94). The meta-analysis of pre-NRT versus post-NRT showed that post-NRT decreased the risk of all stillbirths by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94), fresh stillbirths by 26% (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90), 1-day neonatal mortality by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82), 7-day neonatal mortality by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93), 28-day neonatal mortality by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13) and perinatal mortality by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91).

conclusionsFindings of this review show that implementation of NRT improves neonatal and perinatal mortality. Further good quality randomised controlled trials addressing the role of NRT for improving neonatal and perinatal outcomes may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016043668.

Indexed as

health services researchmortalitymultidisciplinary team-care

Identifiers

PMID29637172
PMCPMC5862177
OpenAlexW2770714769

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.