Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651261›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Revisiting: "A pre-post study of a multi-country scale up of resuscitation training of facility birth attendants: does helping babies breathe training save lives?"

Sara Berkelhamer, Nalini Singhal

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sara BerkelhamerClinical Associated Professor of Pediatrics, University at Buffalo SUNY, Buffalo, USA. saraberk@buffalo.edu.
Nalini SinghalUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHelping Babies Breathe (HBB) is a low cost, skills-based neonatal resuscitation education program designed specifically for use in low resource settings. Studies from Tanzania, India and Nepal have demonstrated that HBB training results in decreased rates of fresh still birth and/or neonatal mortality. However, less is known regarding the impact of training on neonatal mortality at a population level. Bellad et al. utilized (BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16 (1):222) utilized population based registries to evaluate outcomes before and after training of facility birth attendants. Their study entitled "A pre-post study of a multi-country scale up of resuscitation training of facility birth attendants: Does Helping Babies Breathe training save lives?" suggested facility based training was not associated with consistent improvements in neonatal mortality on a population level. DISCUSSION: Combining outcomes from three diverse settings may have under-estimated the impact of HBB training. We remain concerned that the modest benefits observed in the Kenyan site were lost with compiling of data. The statement that HBB "was not associated with consistent improvements in mortality" may lead to the mistaken conclusion that improvements in neonatal mortality were not seen, when in fact, they were in selected cohorts. With numerous studies demonstrating potential for reduced neonatal mortality as a result of HBB training, we encourage interpretation of these findings in the context of local care.

Indexed as

Asphyxia NeonatorumFemaleHumansIndiaInfantInfant, NewbornKenyaNepalPregnancyResuscitationTanzaniaHelping Babies BreatheNeonatal mortalityResuscitationResuscitation training

Identifiers

PMID31651261
PMCPMC6813991

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.