ArticleHospital pediatrics2020
Oral Vitamin K Prophylaxis in Newborns: A Survey of Clinician Opinions and Practices.
Article in Hospital pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neonatologists and vitamin K hesitancy.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2023Review
- Physicians' Opinion and Practice of Vitamin K Administration at Birth in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe majority of newborns in the United States receive intramuscular (IM) vitamin K for prophylaxis against vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). Oral vitamin K is less effective than IM vitamin K in preventing VKDB but is widely used in Europe and by some in the United States when parents refuse IM vitamin K for their newborn. Our aim was to assess the practices, opinions, and knowledge of newborn clinicians regarding oral vitamin K prophylaxis when parents refuse IM vitamin K.
methodsWe conducted an electronic survey of newborn clinicians from 3 academic medical centers in California, Iowa, and Connecticut. Descriptive statistics and χ
resultsOf 160 newborn clinicians at 3 sites, 110 (69%) completed the survey. Of respondents, 58 (53%) believed the incidence of IM vitamin K refusal is increasing and had prescribed or recommended oral vitamin K at least once. Regarding knowledge, 32 (28%) and 23 (20%) respondents did not know whether oral vitamin K decreases the risk of early- and late-onset VKDB, respectively. There were no significant differences in opinions, knowledge, or practices across institutions or practice settings (NICU, well-newborn nursery, or both) (
conclusionsOur study findings suggest that newborn clinicians may lack knowledge about the effectiveness of oral vitamin K in preventing VKDB. More information is needed about oral vitamin K regimens and outcomes of newborns who receive oral vitamin K.
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.