ArticlePloS one2023
Outcomes of neonates born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid pre and post 2015 NRP guideline implementation.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Care of Preterm and Term Newborns with Respiratory Conditions: A Systematic Synthesis of Evidence from Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Neonatology · 2025Pooled it
- Video laryngoscopy in neonate and infant intubation-a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Meconium-stained amniotic fluid.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of neonatal outcomes of term neonates with meconium-stained amniotic fluid before and after routine endotracheal suctioning strategy at birth.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Microbial Pattern in Amniotic Fluid from Women with Premature Rupture of Membranes and Meconium-Stained Fluid.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A shift in the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) guidelines occurred in 2015 from routine intubation and endotracheal suctioning of all meconium-stained non-vigorous infants towards less aggressive interventions based on response to initial resuscitation. This study aims to examine the impact of this change on outcomes of non-vigorous infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid at a level III academic NICU encompassing years before and after the change in guideline. This single-center retrospective study compared NICU therapies and clinical outcomes of 117 non-vigorous newborns pre-guideline implementation to 106 non-vigorous newborns post-guideline implementation. Nearly two thirds of infants in the pre-guideline cohort received endotracheal suctioning with recovery of meconium compared to less than a third of infants in the post-guideline cohort (p<0.01). Though a higher proportion of the pre-guideline cohort were admitted to the NICU for respiratory issues compared to the post-guideline cohort, the two groups did not differ significantly with regard to morbidity and therapies. Despite a marked reduction in rates of intubation and endotracheal suctioning, there is no difference in outcomes between pre-guideline implementation vs post-guideline implementation in non-vigorous meconium-stained infants, supporting the recent NRP guideline change and highlighting the benefit of expectant management.
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.