ArticleBMC pediatrics2020
First-step validation of a text message-based application for newborn clinical management among pediatricians.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeonatal mortality is high in developing countries. Lack of adequate training and insufficient management skills for sick newborn care contribute to these deaths. We developed a phone application dubbed Protecting Infants Remotely by Short Message Service (PRISMS). The PRISMS application uses routine clinical assessments with algorithms to provide newborn clinical management suggestions. We measured the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of PRISMS by comparing its clinical case management suggestions with those of experienced pediatricians as the gold standard.
methodsTwelve different newborn case scenarios developed by pediatrics residents, based on real cases they had seen, were managed by pediatricians and PRISMS®
resultsWe found high level of agreement between pediatricians and PRISMS for components of newborn care including: 10% dextrose (Agreement = 73.8%), normal saline (Agreement = 73.8%), anticonvulsants (Agreement = 100%), blood transfusion (Agreement =81%), phototherapy (Agreement = 90.5%), and supplemental oxygen (agreement = 69.1%). However, we found poor agreement with potential investigations such as complete blood count, blood culture and lumbar puncture. PRISMS had a user satisfaction score of 3.8 out of 5 (range 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and an average PRISMS user experience score of 4.1 out of 5 (range 1 = very bad, 5 = very good).
conclusionManagement plans for newborn care from PRISMS showed good agreement with management plans from experienced Pediatricians. We acknowledge that the level of agreement was low in some aspects of newborn care.
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.