ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023
NeoCheck: A New Checklist to Assess Performance during Newborn Life Support-A Validation Study.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Virtual Reality-Based Simulation Training as a Supplement to Traditional Simulation Training for Improving Neonatal Resuscitation Performance Among Doctors and Nurses in Denmark: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Web-based versus simulation-based refresher training in newborn life support: A randomized multicenter noninferiority controlled trial.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation and their validity evidence: a scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
- NeoScore: a new tool to assess technical and non-technical skills during neonatal resuscitation.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to design and validate a new checklist and standardized scenario for assessing providers' performance during Newborn Life Support (NLS).
methodsWe invited twelve experts in Neonatology to take part in a three-step Delphi process. They rated the importance of each item of a newly designed assessment tool to evaluate participants' performance during Newborn Life Support independently on a numeric rating scale from 1 to 5 (1 = lowest; 5 = highest) and were able to give additional comments. All items achieving a mean rating below four after the third round were deleted. For the reliability of the checklist, we calculated interrater reliability.
resultsUsing a standardized Delphi process, we revised the initial checklist according to the experts' ratings and comments. The final assessment tool includes 38 items covering all relevant steps during NLS. The mean expert rating of all items was 4.40. Interrater reliability showed substantial agreement between the two raters in the first draft (κ = 0.80) as well as in the final draft of the checklist (κ = 0.73).
conclusionWe designed a feasible assessment tool for evaluating performance during NLS. We proved the checklist to be valid and reasonable using a Delphi validation process and calculating interrater reliability.
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.