SynthesisBMJ paediatrics open2024
Neonatal death prediction scores: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ paediatrics open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Data variables reported during neonatal transport: a systematic literature review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Positive Tests in Neonates: Clinical Outcomes, Transmission Pathways, and Immune Vulnerability-Case Series.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of machine learning training strategies for neonatal mortality prediction using multicountry data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of an epidemiological risk score for neonatal death in a middle-income country.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare, through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational accuracy studies, the main existing neonatal death prediction scores.
methodSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational accuracy studies. The databases accessed were MEDLINE, ELSEVIER, LILACS, SciELO, OpenGrey, Open Access Thesis and Dissertations, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. For qualitative analysis, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used. For the quantitative analysis, the area under the curve and the SE were used, as well as the inverse of the variance as a weight measure, DerSimonian and Laird as a measure of random effects, Higgins' I² as an estimate of heterogeneity, Z as a final measure with a 95% confidence level.
results55 studies were analysed, 8 scores were compared in a total of 193 849 newborns included. The most accurate neonatal death prediction score was Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology Perinatal Extension II (SNAPPE II) (0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92)) and the least accurate was gestational age (0.75 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.79)).
conclusionSNAPPE II was the most accurate score found in this study. Despite this, the choice of score depends on the situation and setting in which the newborn is inserted, and it is up to the researcher to analyse and decide which one to use based on practicality and the possibility of local implementation. Given this, it is interesting to carry out new prospective studies to improve the prediction of neonatal deaths around the world. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023462425.
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.