ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2024
A Framework for Neonatal Prematurity Information System Development Based on a Systematic Review on Current Registries: An Original Research.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Registries are regarded as a just valuable fount of data on determining neonates suffering prematurity or low birth weight (LBW), ameliorating provided care, and developing studies. Objective: This study aimed to probe the studies, including premature infants' registries, adapt the needed minimum data set, and provide an offered framework for premature infants' registries. Material and Methods: For this descriptive study, electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Embase/Medline were searched. In addition, a review of gray literature was undertaken to identify relevant studies in English on current registries and databases. Screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts was conducted independently based on PRISMA guidelines. The basic registry information, scope, registry type, data source, the purpose of the registry, and important variables were extracted and analyzed. Results: Fifty-six papers were qualified and contained in the process that presented 51 systems and databases linked in prematurity at the popular and government levels in 34 countries from 1963 to 2017. As a central model of the information management system and knowledge management, a prematurity registry framework was offered based on data, information, and knowledge structure. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is a comprehensive study that has systematically reviewed prematurity-related registries. Since there are international standards to develop new registries, the proposed framework in this article can be beneficial too. This framework is essential not only to facilitate the prematurity registry design but also to help the collection of high-value clinical data necessary for the acquisition of better clinical knowledge.
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.