ArticleJMIR pediatrics and parenting2024
The Finnegan Score for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Revisited With Routine Electronic Data: Retrospective Study.
Article in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Finnegan Score for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Revisited With Routine Electronic Data: Retrospective Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) may be assessed with the Finnegan score (FS). Since the FS is laborious and subjective, alternative ways of assessment may improve quality of care. Objective: In this pilot study, we examined associations between the FS and routine monitoring data obtained from the electronic health record system. Methods: The study included 205 neonates with NAS after intrauterine (n=23) or postnatal opioid exposure (n=182). Routine monitoring data were analyzed at 60±10 minutes (t-1) and 120±10 minutes (t-2) before each FS assessment. Within each time period, the mean for each variable was calculated. Readings were also normalized to individual baseline data for each patient and parameter. Mixed effects models were used to assess the effect of different variables. Results: Plots of vital parameters against the FS showed heavily scattered data. When controlling for several variables, the best-performing mixed effects model displayed significant effects of individual baseline-controlled mean heart rate (estimate 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07) and arterial blood pressure (estimate 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.08) at t-1 with a goodness of fit (R2m) of 0.11. Conclusions: Routine electronic data can be extracted and analyzed for their correlation with FS data. Mixed effects models show small but significant effects after normalizing vital parameters to individual baselines.
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.