ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2025
NeoScore: a new tool to assess technical and non-technical skills during neonatal resuscitation.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 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.
- Assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation and their validity evidence: a scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraining with high-technology manikins improves cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skill retention, but a checklist to assess both technical and non-technical skills is lacking. This study aimed to develop a standardized checklist to evaluate healthcare's performance during simulated Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) scenarios. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-two international neonatal resuscitation experts participated in a two-step modified Delphi process, rating each checklist item on a scale of 1-5 and providing feedback. Items with a mean rating below 4 or receiving comments were reviewed. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the final tool was assessed using video-recordings of simulated scenarios.
resultsThe final checklist, validated by 15 experts, includes 33 items. Mean expert rating of all items was 4.35. The checklist showed moderate inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.67) overall, with excellent reliability (ICC = 0.8) for technical skills.
conclusionThe tool effectively evaluates technical skills but requires further refinement for non-technical skills assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39824896What 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.