ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Scandinavian perspectives on life support at the border of viability.
Review 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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- When facts are not fixed: rethinking shared decision making at the margins of neonatal viability.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Postnatal Steroids in Preterm Infants: A Narrative Review Series-Part 1: Inflammatory Modulation and Respiratory Impacts.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Living in a bubble with profound difficulties-parents' experiences of extremely preterm survivors.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2025Article
- Neurological outcomes and associated perinatal factors in infants born between 22 and 25 weeks with active care.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in neonatal medicine have allowed us to rescue extremely preterm infants. However, both long-term vulnerability and the burden of treatment in the neonatal period increase with decreasing gestational age. This raises questions about the justification of life support when a baby is born at the border of viability, and has led to a so-called "grey zone", where many professionals are unsure whether provision of life support is in the child's best interest. Despite cultural, political and economic similarities, the Scandinavian countries differ in their approach to periviable infants, as seen in their respective national guidelines and practices. In Sweden, guidelines and practice are more rescue-focused at the lower end of the border of viability, Danish guidelines emphasizes the need to involve parental views in the decision-making process, whereas Norway appears to be somewhere in between. In this paper, I will give an overview of national consensus documents and practices in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and reflect on the ethical justification for the different approaches.
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.