Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34006538›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Refining clinical algorithms for a neonatal digital platform for low-income countries: a modified Delphi technique.

Mari Evans, Mark H Corden, Caroline Crehan, Felicity Fitzgerald, Michelle Heys

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05127070 (Evaluating the NeoTree), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT05127070 unknown statusnot on this map

Evaluating the NeoTree: An eHealth Solution to Reduce Neonatal Mortality in Two Low Income Countries: Malawi and Zimbabwe

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2019 to 2022Enrolled19,000ConditionsPrematurity, Neonatal Encephalopathy, Neonatal Sepsis, Neonatal DeathArmsNeotree
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Mari EvansUCL Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5113-3629
Mark H CordenDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6146-1634
Caroline CrehanUCL Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3655-6954
Felicity FitzgeraldUCL Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9594-3228
Michelle HeysUCL Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK m.heys@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1458-505X
Great Ormond Street Hospital · GBUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 215742/Z19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether a panel of neonatal experts could address evidence gaps in local and international neonatal guidelines by reaching a consensus on four clinical decision algorithms for a neonatal digital platform (NeoTree).

designTwo-round, modified Delphi technique. SETTING AND

participantsParticipants were neonatal experts from high-income and low-income countries (LICs).

methodsThis was a consensus-generating study. In round 1, experts rated items for four clinical algorithms (neonatal sepsis, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, respiratory distress of the newborn, hypothermia) and justified their responses. Items meeting consensus for inclusion (≥80% agreement) were incorporated into the algorithms. Items not meeting consensus were either excluded, included following revisions or included if they contained core elements of evidence-based guidelines. In round 2, experts rated items from round 1 that did not reach consensus.

resultsFourteen experts participated in round 1, 10 in round 2. Nine were from high-income countries, five from LICs. Experts included physicians and nurse practitioners with an average neonatal experience of 20 years, 12 in LICs. After two rounds, a consensus was reached on 43 of 84 items (52%). Per experts' recommendations, items in line with local and WHO guidelines yet not meeting consensus were still included to encourage consistency for front-line healthcare workers. As a result, the final algorithms included 53 items (62%).

conclusionFour algorithms in a neonatal digital platform were reviewed and refined by consensus expert opinion. Revisions to NeoTree will be made in response to these findings. Next steps include clinical validation of the algorithms.

Indexed as

PhysiciansAlgorithmsConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansInfant, NewbornPovertyinformation technologyneonatal intensive & critical careneonatologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID34006538
PMCPMC8130744
OpenAlexW3161980533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.