Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30786256›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2019

Unexpected term NICU admissions: a marker of obstetrical care quality?

Mark A Clapp, Kaitlyn E James, Sara V Bates, Anjali J Kaimal

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Who's in the NICU? A population-level analysis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark A ClappDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA. Electronic address: mark.clapp@mgh.harvard.edu.
Kaitlyn E JamesDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Sara V BatesDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Anjali J KaimalDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
Harvard University · US

Funding

Career Development Program in Substance Use and Addiction MedicineK12DA043490 · NIDA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI A EDEN EVINS, NANCY A RIGOTTI · 2017 to 2026
$4.7M
Mentoring in Addiction Treatment ResearchK24DA030443 · NIDA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI EVINS, A EDEN · 2010 to 2020
$2.0M
NIDA NIH HHS K12 DA043490NIDA NIH HHS K24 DA030443
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnexpected admissions of term neonates to the neonatal intensive care unit and unexpected postnatal complications have been proposed as neonatal-focused quality metrics for intrapartum care. Previous studies have noted significant variation in overall hospital neonatal intensive care unit admission rates; however, little is known about the influence of obstetric practices on these rates or whether variation among unanticipated admissions in low-risk, term neonates can be attributed to systemic hospital practices.

objectiveThe objective of the study was to examine the relative effects of patient characteristics and intrapartum events on unexpected neonatal intensive care unit admissions and to quantify the between-hospital variation in neonatal intensive care unit admission rates among this group of neonates. STUDY

designWe performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using data collected as part of the Consortium for Safe Labor study. Women who delivered term (≥37 weeks), singleton, nonanomalous, liveborn infants without an a priori risk for neonatal intensive care unit admission were included. The primary outcome was neonatal intensive care unit admission among this population. Multilevel mixed-effect models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for demographics (age, race, insurer), pregnancy characteristics (parity, gestational age, tobacco use, birthweight), maternal comorbidities (chronic and pregnancy-induced hypertension), hospital characteristics (delivery volume, hospital and neonatal intensive care unit level, academic affiliation), and intrapartum events (prolonged second stage, induction of labor, trial of labor after cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and abruption). Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to estimate the between-hospital variance in a series of hierarchical models.

resultsOf the 143,951 infants meeting all patient and hospital inclusion criteria, 7995 (5.6%) were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit after birth. In the fully adjusted model, the factors associated with the highest odds for neonatal intensive care unit admission included: nulliparity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.62 [95% confidence interval, 1.53-1.71]), large for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.71]), and small for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.73]). Induction of labor (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.01]) was not associated with increased odds of neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with women who labored spontaneously. The events associated with higher odds of neonatal intensive care unit admission included: prolonged second stage (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66 [95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.83]); chorioamnionitis (adjusted odds ratio, 3.89 [95% confidence interval, 3.42-4.44]), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (adjusted odds ratio, 1.96 [95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.10]), and abruption (adjusted odds ratio, 2.64 [95% confidence interval, 2.16-.21]). Compared with women who did not labor, the odds of neonatal intensive care unit admission were lower for women who labored: adjusted odds ratio, 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.52) for women with no uterine scar and adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.94) for women with a uterine scar. There was significant variation in neonatal intensive care unit admission rates by hospital, ranging from 2.9% to 11.2%. After accounting for case mix and hospital characteristics, the between-hospital variance was 1.9%, suggesting that little of the variation was explained by the effect of the hospital.

conclusionThis study contributes to the currently limited understanding of term, neonatal intensive care unit admission rates as a marker of obstetrical care quality. We demonstrated that significant variation exists in hospital unexpected neonatal intensive care unit admission rates and that certain intrapartum events are associated with an increased risk for neonatal intensive care unit admission after delivery. However, the between-hospital variation was low. Unmeasured confounders and extrinsic factors, such as neonatal intensive care unit bed availability, may limit the ability of unexpected term neonatal intensive care unit admissions to meaningfully reflect obstetrical care quality.

Indexed as

Abruptio PlacentaeChorioamnionitisFetal MacrosomiaHospitalizationIntensive Care Units, NeonatalObstetricsQuality of Health CareTerm BirthAdultAmniotic FluidCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Small for Gestational AgeLabor, Inducedhospital variationintrapartumlaborneonatal intensive careneonatal intensive care unitobstetric carequality

Identifiers

PMID30786256
PMCPMC8462396
OpenAlexW4235757630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.