ReviewJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2022
Do small baby units improve extremely premature infant outcomes?
Review in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2022. 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.
- It's the little things. A framework and guidance for programs to care for infants 22-23 weeks' gestational age.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Review
- Construction of an early diagnostic model for brain injury in premature infants based on combined amplitude-integrated electroencephalography and cranial ultrasound parameters.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing numbers of neonatal intensive care units have formed small baby units or small baby teams with the intention to optimize care of extremely premature infants. Considerable time, energy, and resources are required to develop and sustain complex quality improvement constructs, so legitimate questions about effectiveness, unintended consequences, and lost opportunity costs warrant scrutiny. The small baby unit literature is diminutive. Errors of chance, bias, and confounding secondary to insufficient definitions of process and outcome metrics, overlapping quality improvement projects, and limited cost analyses restrict firm conclusions. Well-established quality improvement methodologies such as evidence-based guidelines, standardized variability reduction using measurement-and-adjust techniques, family-integrated focus, and developmentally sensitive care, reliably improve outcomes for all-sized premature infants. There is not compelling published evidence that adding specialized small baby units or designated teams for extremely premature infants further enhances short- or long-term health if robust quality improvement fundamentals are already imbedded within local culture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34012054What 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.