ArticlePaediatrics & child health2018
Golden hour management practices for infants <32 weeks gestational age in Canada.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysis of portal vein thrombosis prevalence and risk factors in neonates following umbilical venous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Jornal de pediatriaPooled it
- [A cross-sectional survey of delivery room transitional care management for very/extremely preterm infants in 24 hospitals in Shenzhen City].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2024Article
- Pathogenesis and Prevention of Intraventricular Hemorrhage in Preterm Infants.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2023Article
- Impact of a "Brain Protection Bundle" in Reducing Severe Intraventricular Hemorrhage in Preterm Infants <30 Weeks GA: A Retrospective Single Centre Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine 'Golden Hour' resuscitation and stabilization practices for infants <32 weeks gestational age in Canadian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).
methodsA survey was distributed to investigators of the Evidence-based Practice for Improving Quality study within the Canadian Neonatal Network in June 2014. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information on antenatal counselling, resuscitation environment, resuscitation and management practices, including respiratory and nutritional practices in the first hour of life. Responses to these categories were stratified into gestational age groupings: 23
resultsInvestigators from 14 of the 23 (61%) NICUs responded. Antenatal counselling was provided to >75% of expectant parents by Staff Neonatologists and Neonatal Fellows. Most NICUs (78%) provided resuscitation in a room adjacent to the high-risk delivery room or the NICU, while few (36%) resuscitated in the delivery room only. Twelve (86%) NICUs practiced delayed cord clamping while two practiced milking of the cord (14%) and 100% used thermal wrap for infants <28 weeks' gestation. All, with the exception of three NICUs used fraction of inspired oxygen ≤0.3 for initial resuscitation and 12/14 (86%) centres applied continuous positive airway pressure for spontaneously breathing infants <25
conclusionsParticipating Canadian NICUs reported that they generally follow Neonatal Resuscitation Program recommendations for stabilization of preterm infants; however, considerable variation exists in the application of evidence-based interventions. Our findings can be used to inform quality improvement initiatives to improve clinical outcomes for this vulnerable population.
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.