ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
Gaps in the coverage of vitamin K
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite operational guidelines, anecdotal evidence suggests that newborn vitamin K1 prophylaxis is not practiced routinely in India. This study determined the coverage of vitamin K1 prophylaxis among newborns in the country.
designNationwide cross-sectional data on live births and newborns receiving vitamin K1 during the 2019-2020 reporting period were abstracted from the Health Management Information System (HMIS). The coverage estimates of newborn vitamin K1 prophylaxis were derived nationally and also for individual states and union territories (UT). Additionally, coverage heterogeneities were investigated using classifiers, viz. geography, socio-demographic index (SDI), special developmental categories and institutional birth rate (IBR).
settingIndia.
participants20 208 804 newborns documented with HMIS.
resultsVitamin K1 was administered to overall 62·36 % newborns (95 % CI: 62·34 to 62·38 %). The Central zone (49·0 %), low SDI states (54·39 %), Empowered Action Group states (53·32 %) and states with low IBR (44·69 %) had the lowest coverage amongst their respective groupings. Across the individual states and UT, the coverage ranged widely from 22·18 % (in Tripura) to 99·38 % (in Puducherry), exhibiting considerable variability (coefficient of variation: 33·74 %) and inequality (Gini coefficient: 0·17). While the coverage in eight states/UT (i.e. Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Telangana and Andaman & Nicobar Islands) was below 50 %; only five states/UT (i.e. Chandigarh, Gujarat, Goa, Puducherry and Tamil Nadu) achieved above 90 % coverage.
conclusionVitamin K1 prophylaxis was not practiced in more than one-third newborns in India. It calls for identifying the barriers, addressing the gaps and implementing newborn vitamin K1 prophylaxis more effectively throughout the country.
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.