Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35221649›Full record

ReviewHippokratia

Periviable birth: A review of ethical considerations.

E Gkiougki, I Chatziioannidis, A Pouliakis, N Iacovidou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Who decides? Exploring decisional dynamics for periviable resuscitation among diverse family structures.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Legal and Ethical Issues in Periviable Decision-Making in the Current Moment.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Article
  5. [Analysis of treatment outcomes of extremely preterm infants in a real-world single center].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

4 authors.

E GkiougkiPediatric and Neonatal Department, Centre Hospitalier Reine Astrid, Malmedy, Belgium.
I Chatziioannidis2 Neonatal Department and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Papageorgiou Hospital, Thessaloniki.
A Pouliakis2 Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, University General Hospital "Attikon".
N IacovidouNeonatal Department, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Aretaieio Hospital Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in perinatology and medical technology have pushed the limits of viability to unprecedented extremes, leading to a growing population of NICU "graduates" with a wide range of health issues. Although survival rates from 22 weeks of gestation onwards have improved over the last 30 years, the incidence of disabilities remains the same. Providing intensive care to a high-risk population with significant mortality and morbidity raises the fundamental conflict between sanctity and quality of life. Potential severe handicap and need for frequent tertiary care inevitably impact the whole family unit and may outweigh the benefit of survival. The aim of this study is to explore and summarize the ethical considerations in neonatal care concerning perivable birth.

methodsEligible studies published on PubMed were included after a systematic search using the PICO methodology.

resultsForty-eight studies were systematically reviewed regarding guidelines, withholding or withdrawing treatment, parental involvement, and principles applied in marginal viability. As periviable birth raises an array of complex ethical and legal concerns, strict guidelines are challenging to implement.

conclusionsActive life-sustaining interventions in neonatology should be balanced against the risk of putting infants through painful and futile procedures and survival with severe sequelae. More evidence is needed on better prediction of long-term outcomes in situations of imminent preterm delivery, while good collaboration between the therapeutic team and the parents for life-and-death decision-making is of utmost importance. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (1):1-7.

Indexed as

ethicsExtreme prematurityguidelineslimit of viabilityperiviabilitywithdrawing treatmentwithholding treatment

Identifiers

PMID35221649
PMCPMC8877922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.