ArticleBMJ open2022
Protecting against brain damage by improving treatment in neonates with hypoglycaemia: ProBrain-D-a study protocol of a prospective longitudinal study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Umbilical Cord Blood Glucose Concentrations and Transitional Neonatal Hypoglycemia.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Association of neonatal hypothermia with neonatal hypoglycemia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Neonatal hypoglycemia: lack of evidence for a safe management.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough neonatal hypoglycaemia is the most common metabolic problem in neonates, there is no standard guideline for screening. Additionally, treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia and glucose administration thresholds are discussed controversially. Severe hypoglycaemia can lead to brain damage, but data on the effects of mild hypoglycaemia on neurological development are limited. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective longitudinal cohort study to analyse if the implementation of a new diagnosis and treatment standard for neonatal hypoglycaemia may improve the outcome of neonates at risk for hypoglycaemia, especially concerning neurodevelopment. Furthermore, the acceptance and feasibility of the standard among different professional groups and parents are analysed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: After implementation of a structured standard operating procedure (SOP), detailing preventive measures, blood glucose screening and neonatal hypoglycaemia treatment in a tertiary care hospital, 678 neonates ≥35+0 weeks of gestation will be recruited in a monocentric prospective cohort study. For comparison, 139 children born before the implementation of this new SOP, who had risk factors for neonatal hypoglycaemia or qualified for blood glucose measurements are recruited (retrospective cohort). For the primary end point, comparative analyses between and within the prospective and retrospective cohorts will be performed regarding the neurological outcome at 2-2.5 years of age in Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Furthermore, comprehensive clinical data and data on nutrition and developmental milestones are assessed at different time points (6 weeks, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) in the prospective cohort. Acceptance and feasibility of the new standard are assessed using questionnaires. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf (20201162). The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00024086.
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.