Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33284335›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Association of Unexpected Newborn Deaths With Changes in Obstetric and Neonatal Process of Care.

Dan Han, Aayush Khadka, Margaret McConnell, Jessica Cohen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. 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
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dan HanLee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Aayush KhadkaHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Margaret McConnellHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jessica CohenHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The death of a healthy term infant may signal patient safety and quality issues. Various initiatives aim to encourage clinicians to learn from these events, but little evidence exists regarding how exposure to an unexpected newborn death may alter clinician practice. Objective: To examine the association between an unexpected newborn death and changes in obstetric and newborn procedures that may be used in response to potential fetal distress or newborn complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used difference-in-differences analysis of 2011 to 2017 US vital statistics data from 477 US counties experiencing an unexpected newborn death during the study period. All in-hospital live births in the 477 counties during the study period were included. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to September 2020. Exposures: The death of an infant aged 0 to 7 days following an unremarkable pregnancy owing to causes other than birth defects, accidents/assaults, or sudden infant death syndrome. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included binary variables capturing intervention in labor/delivery (induction, augmentation, cesarean delivery, forceps/vacuum) and procedures to avert and mitigate newborn complications (assisted ventilation, surfactant replacement therapy, antibiotics for suspected sepsis, neonatal intensive care unit admission). Results: The main sample included 5.72 million births (2.54 million during preexposure time). Mean (SD) maternal age was 27.3 (5.8) years; 67% of mothers were White, and 12% were Black. Associations varied across the 4 estimated models. Following an unexpected newborn death, there was no significant increase in the probability of cesarean delivery in the full sample model (0.28 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.57 pp), but a significant increase in the other 3 models, with values ranging from 0.55 pp (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.88 pp) in the full sample model with matching to 0.66 pp (95% CI, 0.13 to 1.19 pp) in the 1-hospital county subsample with matching. There was a significant increase in the probability of newborn assisted ventilation in the full sample model with matching (0.46 pp; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.83 pp), but no significant increase in the other 3 models, with estimates ranging from 0.33 pp (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.71 pp) to 0.69 pp (95% CI, -0.02 to 1.40 pp). An unexpected newborn death was not associated with a significant increase in antibiotic use in the full sample models (without matching: 0.19 pp; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.39 pp; with matching: 0.22 pp; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.46 pp), but was associated with a significant increase in both of the 1-hospital county subsample models (without matching: 0.38 pp; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.73 pp; with matching: 0.39 pp; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.77 pp). Conclusions and Relevance: In some study models, an unexpected newborn death was associated with statistically significant increases in subsequent use of procedures to avert and mitigate fetal distress and newborn complications, which could reflect increases in identifying and proactively addressing serious potential complications or increased clinician caution applied across all cases. Future research should address whether these changes affect patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Infant MortalityAdultCesarean SectionCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHospitalsHumansInfantInfant CareInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal Health ServicesPregnancyRisk FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33284335
PMCPMC11902236
OpenAlexW3112011103

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.