ArticleMaternal and child health journal2024
Predicting Admission to Neonatal Care Unit at Mid-Pregnancy and Delivery Using Data from a General Obstetric Population.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of Random Forest and Stepwise Regression for Variable Selection Using Low Prevalence Predictors: A case Study in Paediatric Sepsis.Maternal and child health journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDevelopment and validation of risk prediction models at mid-pregnancy and delivery to predict admission to the neonatal care unit.
methodsWe used data from all singleton deliveries at Cork University Maternity Hospital (CUMH), Ireland during 2019. Admission to the neonatal care unit was assumed if length of stay in the unit was > 24 h. Multivariable logistic regression with backward stepwise selection was used to develop the models. Discrimination was assessed using the ROC curve C-statistic, and internal validation was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. We conducted temporal external validation using data from all singleton deliveries at CUMH during 2020.
resultsOut of 6,077 women, 5,809 (95.6%) with complete data were included in the analyses. A total of 612 infants (10.54%) were admitted to the neonatal care unit for > 24 hours. Six variables were informative at mid-pregnancy: male infants, maternal smoking, advancing maternal age, maternal overweight/obesity, nulliparity and history of gestational diabetes (C-statistic: 0.600, 95% CI: 0.567, 0.614). Seven variables were informative at delivery: male infants, nulliparity, public antenatal care, gestational age < 39 weeks', non-spontaneous vaginal delivery, premature rupture of membranes and time of birth between 17:01-07.59 h (C-statistic: 0.738, 95% CI: 0.715, 0.760). Using these predictors, we developed nomograms to calculate individualised risk of neonatal care unit admission. Bootstrapping indicated good internal performance and external validation suggested good reproducibility. DISCUSSION: Our nomograms allow the user to quickly estimate individualised risk of neonatal care unit admission. Future research should aim to improve accuracy in early pregnancy to better assist counselling of parents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39419917What 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.