ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Perinatal optimisation for periviable birth and outcomes: a 4-year network analysis (2018-2021) across a change in national guidance.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A rapid review of periviable (22 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks) counselling practices and the need for a trauma-informed care approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- A network analysis of timing and conditions present at time of death for periviable infants (22+0-23+6 weeks) admitted to neonatal intensive care after receiving survival-focused care at birth.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- A structured comparison and reflection on international position statements and professional guidance for the management of periviable infants.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) released their revised framework for extremely preterm infant management in 2019. This revised framework promotes consideration of perinatal optimisation and survival-focused care from 22 weeks gestation onwards. This was a departure from the previous BAPM framework which recommended comfort care as the only recommended management for infants <23 + 0 weeks. Methods: Our study evaluates the clinical impact that this updated framework has had across the Northwest of England. We utilised anonymised network data from periviable infants delivered across the region to examine changes in perinatal optimisation practices and survival outcomes following the release of the latest BAPM framework. Results: Our data show that after the introduction of the updated framework there has been an increase in perinatal optimisation practices for periviable infants and an 80% increase in the number of infants born at 22 weeks receiving survival-focused care and admission to a neonatal unit. Discussion: There remain significant discrepancies in optimisation practices by gestational age, which may be contributing to the static survival rates that were observed in the lowest gestational ages.
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.