Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2021
Delivery room ultrasound study to assess heart rate in newborns: DELIROUS study.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 9. Neonatal resuscitation.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- Fast and accurate newborn heart rate monitoring at birth: A systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2024Review
- Newborn heart rate monitoring methods at birth and clinical outcomes: A systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room, heart rate guides clinical intervention, and although different methods have been evaluated as auscultation, pulse oximetry, and electrocardiography, they have various limitations. This was a prospective observational study which aim was to evaluate the accuracy and speed of ultrasound for measuring neonatal heart rate compared with stethoscope, pulse oximetry, and electrocardiography. Simultaneous determinations of heart rate using stethoscope, ultrasound, pulse oximetry, and electrocardiography were performed. Fifty term newborns were included. There were no differences according to the turn on time of the ultrasound, pulse oximetry, and electrocardiography (p = 0.666), but the placement time and the detection time from birth were shorter for ultrasound (p < 0.001). A stronger positive correlation was detected between ultrasound and electrocardiography at 90 (Rho = 0.926), and 120 s (Rho = 0.920) with p < 0.001. The Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of - 2.23 (p = 0.129) between ultrasound and electrocardiography at 90 s, and a bias of 0.44 (p = 0.092) at 120 s. Instead, the bias between auscultation and electrocardiography at 90 s was - 6.71 (p = 0.131), and at 120 s was of - 4.67 (p = 0.793).Conclusions: Ultrasound is a fast method to detect heart rate in the delivery room and has a good correlation with stethoscope and electrocardiography. What is Known: • During neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room, heart rate guides clinical intervention, and although different methods have been evaluated, they have various limitations. What is New: • Heart rate ultrasound is a good and fast method to detect HR in the delivery room with a good correlation with electrocardiography and stethoscope.
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.