ArticleResuscitation plus2021
Characterizing prehospital response to neonatal resuscitation.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stimulate, Ventilate Collaborate-A Qualitative Study Underpinning the Development of an Educational Guide to Newborn Resuscitation for Midwifery Students.Nursing open · 2026Article
- RESCUER mobile app to support pediatric resuscitation: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Characterization of teamwork and guideline compliance in prehospital neonatal resuscitation simulations.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate performance of initial steps of newborn resuscitation according to the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics' Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) guidelines in the prehospital setting. STUDY
designObservational study of 265 paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) from 45 EMS teams recruited from public fire and private transport agencies in a major metropolitan area. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire assessing demographics, experience, and comfort in caring for children. Simulations were conducted April 2015 to March 2016. Technical performance was evaluated by blinded video review. NRP actions were assessed using a structured performance tool.
resultsTwo hundred sixty-five EMS providers responded to survey questions and participated in simulations. In total, 16% reported feeling very or extremely comfortable caring for children <30 days of age (vs. 71% for children aged 12-18 years). Among 45 EMS teams participating in simulations, 22% (n = 10) dried, 18% (n = 8) stimulated, and 2% (n = 1) warmed within 30 s from arrival and 11% (n = 5) provided BMV within 60 s from arrival, as recommended by NRP. All teams provided BMV. Eighty-eight percent bagged below NRP rate recommendations and 96% bagged with tidal volume exceeding guidelines. Looking over the entire 10-min simulation for ever performing measures, 73% started to dry the baby within a median of 51 (range 0-539) seconds from arrival, 38% started to stimulate the baby within a median of 34 s (range 0-181), and 44% started to warm the baby within a median 291 s (range 27-575 s).
conclusionsThese data from field simulations suggest NRP steps recommended for the first minute after birth are seldom performed in a timely manner and suggests opportunities for improvement.
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.