SynthesisBMC pediatrics2023
Neonatal near-miss audits: a systematic review and a call to action.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeonatal near-miss (NNM) can be considered as an end of a spectrum that includes stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Clinical audits of NNM might reduce perinatal adverse outcomes. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of NNM audits for reducing perinatal mortality and morbidity and explore related contextual factors.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS and SciELO were searched in February/2023. Randomized and observational studies of NNM clinical audits were included without restrictions on setting, publication date or language. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: perinatal mortality, morbidity and NNM. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: factors contributing to NNM and measures of quality of care. Study characteristics, methodological quality and outcome were extracted and assessed by two independent reviewers. Narrative synthesis was performed.
resultsOf 3081 titles and abstracts screened, 36 articles had full-text review. Two studies identified, rated, and classified contributing care factors and generated recommendations to improve the quality of care. No study reported the primary outcomes for the review (change in perinatal mortality, morbidity and NNM rates resulting from an audit process), thus precluding meta-analysis. Three studies were multidisciplinary NNM audits and were assessed for additional contextual factors.
conclusionThere was little data available to determine the effectiveness of clinical audits of NNM. While trials randomised at patient level to test our research question would be difficult or unethical for both NNM and perinatal death audits, other strategies such as large, well-designed before-and-after studies within services or comparisons between services could contribute evidence. This review supports a Call to Action for NNM audits. Adoption of formal audit methodology, standardised NNM definitions, evaluation of parent's engagement and measurement of the effectiveness of quality improvement cycles for improving outcomes are needed.
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.