Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37156244›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025

Neonatal mortality risk for vulnerable newborn types in 15 countries using 125.5 million nationwide birth outcome records, 2000-2020.

Lorena Suárez-Idueta, Hannah Blencowe, Yemisrach B Okwaraji, Judith Yargawa, Ellen Bradley, Adrienne Gordon, Vicki Flenady, Enny S Paixao, Mauricio L Barreto, Sarka Lisonkova and 27 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

37 authors.

Lorena Suárez-IduetaMexican Society of Public Health, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0909-7737
Hannah BlencoweMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1556-3159
Yemisrach B OkwarajiMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4541-2856
Judith YargawaMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6299-2215
Ellen BradleyMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4457-0762
Adrienne GordonFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2328-1066
Vicki FlenadyCentre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth, Mater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8114-7677
Enny S PaixaoMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-908X
Mauricio L BarretoCentre for Data Integration and Knowledge for Health (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, Fiocruz Bahia, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Salvador, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0215-4930
Sarka LisonkovaDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1220-310X
Qi WenDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Petr VelebilDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0643-1069
Jitka JírováDepartment of Data Analysis, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
Erzsebet Horváth-PuhóDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3594-2212
Henrik Toft SørensenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4299-7040
Luule SakkeusSchool of Governance, Law and Society, Estonian Institute for Population Studies, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3785-183X
Liili AbuladzeSchool of Governance, Law and Society, Estonian Institute for Population Studies, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0109-9757
Khalid A YunisDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6384-2745
Ayah Al BizriDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0677-7879
Arturo BarrancoDirectorate of Health Information, Ministry of Health, Mexico City, Mexico.
Lisa BroedersPerined, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Aimée E van DijkPerined, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Fawziya AlyafeiHamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6851-0654
Tawa O OlukadeHamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2103-5355
Neda RazazClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1273-0110
Jonas SöderlingClinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9006-2835
Lucy K SmithDepartment of Population Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-0793
Elizabeth S DraperDepartment of Population Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9340-8176
Estelle LowrySchool of Natural and Built Environment, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-416X
Neil RowlandQueen's Management School, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-1682
Rachael WoodPublic Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Kirsten MonteathPregnancy, Birth and Child Health Team, Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Isabel PereyraDepartment of Wellness and Health, Catholic University of Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4696-8063
Gabriella PraviaDepartment of Wellness and Health, Catholic University of Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5871-6257
Eric O OhumaMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-2593
Joy E LawnMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4573-1443
National Vulnerable Newborn Mortality Collaborative Group and Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Core Group

Funding

Children's Investment Fund Foundation 1803-02535Medical Research Council MR/S004971/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare neonatal mortality associated with six novel vulnerable newborn types in 125.5 million live births across 15 countries, 2000-2020.

designPopulation-based, multi-country study.

settingNational data systems in 15 middle- and high-income countries.

methodsWe used individual-level data sets identified for the Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Collaboration. We examined the contribution to neonatal mortality of six newborn types combining gestational age (preterm [PT] versus term [T]) and size-for-gestational age (small [SGA], <10th centile, appropriate [AGA], 10th-90th centile or large [LGA], >90th centile) according to INTERGROWTH-21st newborn standards. Newborn babies with PT or SGA were defined as small and T + LGA was considered as large. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and population attributable risks (PAR%) for the six newborn types.

main outcome measuresMortality of six newborn types.

resultsOf 125.5 million live births analysed, risk ratios were highest among PT + SGA (median 67.2, interquartile range [IQR] 45.6-73.9), PT + AGA (median 34.3, IQR 23.9-37.5) and PT + LGA (median 28.3, IQR 18.4-32.3). At the population level, PT + AGA was the greatest contributor to newborn mortality (median PAR% 53.7, IQR 44.5-54.9). Mortality risk was highest among newborns born before 28 weeks (median RR 279.5, IQR 234.2-388.5) compared with babies born between 37 and 42 completed weeks or with a birthweight less than 1000 g (median RR 282.8, IQR 194.7-342.8) compared with those between 2500 g and 4000 g as a reference group.

conclusionPreterm newborn types were the most vulnerable, and associated with the highest mortality, particularly with co-existence of preterm and SGA. As PT + AGA is more prevalent, it is responsible for the greatest burden of neonatal deaths at population level.

Indexed as

Infant MortalityBirth WeightFemaleGestational AgeGlobal HealthHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Small for Gestational AgeMalePregnancyVulnerable Populationsneonatal mortalitypreterm birthsize for gestational agevulnerable newborn

Identifiers

PMID37156244
PMCPMC12678064

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.