ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2025
Assessing the efficacy of electrocardiogram for heart rate evaluation during newborn resuscitation at birth: a prospective observational study.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Non-Contact and Wireless Wearable Technologies for Neonatal Vital Sign Monitoring in the Delivery Room-A Scoping Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
objectiveThis study assessed the efficacy of electrocardiogram (ECG) compared to pulse oximetry (PO) in detecting heart rate (HR) during high-risk newborn resuscitation.
methodsA prospective observational study was performed with high-risk delivery cases to measure the time required for HR detection. A conventional PO and a standard ECG monitor were used for HR assessment.
resultsForty-one infants were analyzed in the study, and 11 needed resuscitation. The study population was divided according to gestational age (GA): 9 were GA <32 weeks, 28 were GA 32-35 weeks, and 4 were GA ≥36 weeks. Time from ECG placement to HR detection (median, 30 seconds; interquartile range [IQR], 20-43.5 seconds) was significantly faster than that from PO placement (median, 125 seconds; IQR, 100-175 seconds; P<0.001). Time from ECG placement to HR detection was shortest in infants with GA <32 weeks at birth (19 seconds [IQR, 11.5-30.0] for GA <32 weeks vs. 34.5 seconds [IQR, 25.0-44.3] for GA 32-35 weeks vs. 39.5 seconds [IQR, 30.0-64.8] for GA ≥36 weeks; P=0.039).
conclusionECG effectively evaluated HR during neonatal resuscitation compared to PO. Low- GA infants who require resuscitation may benefit from HR evaluation with nearby standard ECG.
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.