Continuous training and certification in neonatal resuscitation in remote areas using a multi-platform information and communication technology intervention, compared to standard training: A randomized cluster trial study protocol.

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.

1. Efficacy of pedagogical framework in neonatal resuscitation skill learning in a resource-limited setting: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2021
   Trial
2. RCPNEOPERU trial: a cluster randomized pilot trial to assess traditional neonatal resuscitation compared to partially virtual training in remote areas.Jornal de pediatria
   Trial
3. Use of digital technologies for staff education and training programmes on newborn resuscitation and complication management: a scoping review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as