Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31335869›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2019

Care practices and neonatal survival in 52 neonatal intensive care units in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: A cross-sectional study.

Claudia Hanson, Samiksha Singh, Karen Zamboni, Mukta Tyagi, Swecha Chamarty, Rajan Shukla, Joanna Schellenberg

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. MusQan Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of preventive medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Claudia HansonDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.ORCID 0000-0001-8066-7873
Samiksha SinghPublic Health Foundation, India, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9441-0657
Karen ZamboniDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Mukta TyagiPublic Health Foundation, India, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9821-934X
Swecha ChamartyPublic Health Foundation, India, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, India.
Rajan ShuklaPublic Health Foundation, India, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1958-7396
Joanna SchellenbergDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.ORCID 0000-0002-0708-3676
Public Health Foundation of India · INLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Indian government supports both public- and private-sector provision of hospital care for neonates: neonatal intensive care is offered in public facilities alongside a rising number of private-for-profit providers. However, there are few published reports about mortality levels and care practices in these facilities. We aimed to assess care practices, causes of admission, and outcomes from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in public secondary and private tertiary hospitals and both public and private medical colleges enrolled in a quality improvement collaborative in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh-2 Indian states with a respective population of 35 and 50 million. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional study between 30 May and 26 August 2016 as part of a baseline evaluation in 52 consenting hospitals (26 public secondary hospitals, 5 public medical colleges, 15 private tertiary hospitals, and 6 private medical colleges) offering neonatal intensive care. We assessed the availability of staff and services, adherence to evidence-based practices at admission, and case fatality after admission to the NICU using a range of tools, including facility assessment, observations of admission, and abstraction of registers and telephone interviews after discharge. Our analysis is adjusted for clustering and weighted for caseload at the hospital level and presents findings stratified by type and ownership of hospitals. In total, the NICUs included just over 3,000 admissions per month. Staffing and infrastructure provision were largely according to government guidelines, except that only a mean of 1 but not the recommended 4 paediatricians were working in public secondary NICUs per 10 beds. On admission, all neonates admitted to private hospitals had auscultation (100%, 19 of 19 observations) but only 42% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-62%, p-value for difference is 0.361) in public secondary hospitals. The most common single cause of admission was preterm birth (25%) followed by jaundice (23%). Case-fatality rates at age 28 days after admission to a NICU were 4% (95% CI 2%-8%), 15% (9%-24%), 4% (2%-8%) and 2% (1%-5%) (Chi-squared p = 0.001) in public secondary hospitals, public medical colleges, private tertiary hospitals, and private medical colleges, respectively, according to facility registers. Case fatality according to postdischarge telephone interviews found rates of 12% (95% CI 7%-18%) for public secondary hospitals. Roughly 6% of admitted neonates were referred to another facility. Outcome data were missing for 27% and 8% of admissions to private tertiary hospitals and private medical colleges. Our study faced the limitation of missing data due to incomplete documentation. Further generalizability was limited due to the small sample size among private facilities.

conclusionsOur findings suggest differences in quality of neonatal intensive care and 28-day survival between the different types of hospitals, although comparison of outcomes is complicated by differences in the case mix and referral practices between hospitals. Uniform reporting of outcomes and risk factors across the private and public sectors is required to assess the benefits for the population of mixed-care provision.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedGuideline AdherenceHealthcare DisparitiesHospital MortalityHospitals, PrivateHospitals, PublicHumansIndiaInfantInfant MortalityIntensive Care, NeonatalIntensive Care Units, NeonatalPatient AdmissionPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingPractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31335869
PMCPMC6650044
OpenAlexW2964074299

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.