Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38849484›Full record

SynthesisPediatric research2025

Identifying outcomes and outcome measures in neonatal family-centered care trials: a systematic review.

Cansel Kocakabak, Agnes van den Hoogen, Melissa Rothfus, Marsha Campbell-Yeo, Johanna Kostenzer, Anna Axelin, Patricia Schofield, Jos M Latour

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cansel KocakabakSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK. cansel.kocakabak@plymouth.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0427-1444
Agnes van den HoogenDepartment Women and Baby, Neonatology, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Melissa RothfusDalhousie Libraries, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Marsha Campbell-YeoSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Johanna KostenzerEuropean Foundation for the Care of Newborn Infants, Munich, Germany.
Anna AxelinDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Patricia SchofieldSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Jos M LatourSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA wide range of outcomes for infants and parents has been reported in clinical trials testing FCC interventions. This systematic review aimed to identify outcomes, outcome measures, and time-points reported in experimental studies testing FCC interventions in neonatal care units.

methodsThis review included experimental studies investigating FCC interventions in neonatal settings. Database searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Scopus, JBI, Lilacs, and SciELO, completed in December 2022 and updated in November 2023. Critical appraisal was performed using the JBI checklist for randomized controlled trials, and a narrative synthesis process was used. Outcomes were categorized into the Comet Taxonomy core areas.

resultsThe search identified 8787 papers; 42 studies were included in the analysis. Totally, 60 outcomes were identified: 42 infant and 18 parents' outcomes. Outcomes were clustered into 12 domains for infants and five domains for parents and measured by 97 outcome measures. The included studies reported 25 and 27 different time-points for infants and parents, respectively.

conclusionThis review of studies testing FCC interventions identified heterogeneity and inconsistency of outcomes, outcome measures, and time-points measuring the outcomes. Developing a core outcome set for FCC studies is warranted to benchmark the evidence and identify best-practices. IMPACT: This systematic review identified inconsistency of outcomes, outcome measures, and time-points reported in quantitative studies testing family-centered care interventions in neonatal care settings. The lack of standardized outcomes and outcome measures reported in clinical trials makes it difficult to synthesize data to provide conclusive recommendations. This systematic review will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for research testing family-centered care interventions in neonatal care settings.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CareHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalParentsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID38849484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.