Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34413095›Full record

ArticleArchives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition2022

Individualised decision making: interpretation of risk for extremely preterm infants-a survey of UK neonatal professionals.

Katherine Wood, Lydia Mietta Di Stefano, Helen Mactier, Sarah Elizabeth Bates, Dominic Wilkinson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Are guidelines needed? International perspectives on decision-making and practice variation in the care of extremely preterm infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Katherine WoodDepartment of Newborn Care, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6232-8616
Lydia Mietta Di StefanoFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3537-9968
Helen MactierDepartment of Neonatology, Princess Royal Maternity, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6154-5758
Sarah Elizabeth BatesDepartment of Women & Childrens, Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Swindon, UK.
Dominic WilkinsonDepartment of Newborn Care, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK dominic.wilkinson@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3958-8633
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBGreat Western Hospital · GBMonash University · AUPrincess Royal Maternity Hospital · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) published a revised framework for perinatal management of extremely preterm infants (EPIs) in 2019. We aimed to assess UK neonatal professionals' interpretation of elements of this framework, as well as the consistency of their estimates of outcome for EPIs.

methodsAn online survey gave participants five cases involving anticipated extremely preterm birth with different favourable and unfavourable risk factors. Respondents were asked to assign a risk category and management option using the BAPM framework and to estimate the chance of survival if the baby received active resuscitation and the chance of severe disability if they survived.

resultsRespondents were consistent in interpretation of risk categories. The majority would follow parental wishes about management. Management decisions did not always correspond with risk assessment, with less inclination to recommend palliative (comfort) care. There were wide estimates of survival or severe disability (5%-90%) with consultants providing lower estimates of severe disability than other groups.

conclusionUK neonatal professionals deferred to parental wishes in the cases presented, indicating an emphasis on shared decision making. However, they did not necessarily use the risk stratification approach for management decisions. Variation in estimates of outcome raises questions about the accuracy of informed decision making and suggests support is needed for UK clinicians to incorporate risk factors into individualised counselling. There may be value in validating existing online risk calculators for UK infants or in developing a UK specific risk model.

Indexed as

Infant, Extremely PrematurePremature BirthDecision MakingFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomethicsneonatologyresuscitation

Identifiers

PMID34413095
PMCPMC9046748
OpenAlexW3185406244

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.