ArticleWorld journal of pediatrics : WJP2019
Comparison of decision-making in neonatal care between China and Japan.
Article in World journal of pediatrics : WJP, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundVarious differences between China and Japan in approaches to medical treatment have been noted, but a few studies have examined differences in medical decision-making, especially in neonatal care. The aim of this study was to clarify these differences by means of a questionnaire.
methodsThe subjects were physicians on the staff of NICUs in China and Japan. The study questionnaire consisted of three parts dealing with the general characteristics of the participants, questions about treatment strategies for hypothetical, critically ill infants, and general questions about the treatment of foreign patients. The Likert scale was used to assess the treatment strategies and the results were analyzed statistically. Subgroup analysis by age, sex, and medical and NICU experience was also performed.
resultsThe proportion of respondents in the Chinese and Japanese groups was 26/26 (100%) and 26/31 (84%), respectively. There was a significant difference between the Chinese and Japanese groups for 8 of 75 questions; Chinese physicians chose the positive treatment or examination options for these eight questions unlike their Japanese counterparts. The responses of the younger, less experienced physicians in both countries were more similar to each other, and more positive than those of their older, more experienced colleagues.
conclusionChinese physicians showed a more positive attitude toward examination and treatment, whereas Japanese physicians showed a more cautious attitude.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30470979What 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.