ReviewResuscitation plus2024
Fast and accurate newborn heart rate monitoring at birth: A systematic review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Challenges and opportunities in neonatal monitoring: insights on forehead photoplethysmography sensors.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Comparative accuracy of a wireless heart rate monitor (NeoBeat) versus standard EKG during resuscitation of very premature neonates.Resuscitation · 2025Observational
- Delivery Room Handling of the Newborn: Filling the Gaps.Neonatology · 2024Review
- Impact of electrocardiogram monitoring on the frequency of tracheal intubation at birth.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
- In neonatal resuscitation, the ECG monitor informs. Ventilation saves.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To examine speed and accuracy of newborn heart rate measurement by various assessment methods employed at birth. Methods: A search of Medline, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Cochrane was conducted between January 1, 1946, to until August 16, 2023. (CRD 42021283364) Study selection was based on predetermined criteria. Reviewers independently extracted data, appraised risk of bias and assessed certainty of evidence. Results: Pulse oximetry is slower and less precise than ECG for heart rate assessment. Both auscultation and palpation are imprecise for heart rate assessment. Other devices such as digital stethoscope, Doppler ultrasound, an ECG device using dry electrodes incorporated in a belt, photoplethysmography and electromyography are studied in small numbers of newborns and data are not available for extremely preterm or bradycardic newborns receiving resuscitation. Digital stethoscope is fast and accurate. Doppler ultrasound and dry electrode ECG in a belt are fast, accurate and precise when compared to conventional ECG with gel adhesive electrodes. Limitations: Certainty of evidence was low or very low for most comparisons. Conclusion: If resources permit, ECG should be used for fast and accurate heart rate assessment at birth. Pulse oximetry and auscultation may be reasonable alternatives but have limitations. Digital stethoscope, doppler ultrasound and dry electrode ECG show promise but need further study.
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.