ArticleBMJ open2025
Measuring the duration of kangaroo mother care for neonates: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kangaroo mother care among hospitalised neonates: evaluation of the validity of duration measurement methods compared to observation linked to the OMWaNA trial in Uganda.BMC pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Determinants of early lactation failure in mothers of moderately preterm neonates: a multilevel analysis of survey data.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesKangaroo mother care (KMC) is high impact for survival of low birth weight neonates, but there are few rigorous evaluations of duration required for impact. We conducted a scoping review of KMC duration measurement methods and assessed their validation.
designScoping review in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for conducting scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, African Index Medicus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, Medrxiv and OpenGrey were searched through November 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Publications with primary data on KMC duration were included. We excluded short procedural skin-to-skin care studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Selection and data abstraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. A data charting form based on the variables of interest was used to abstract data.
resultsA total of 213 publications were included, of which 54 (25%) documented a method of measuring KMC duration. Only 20 publications (9%) provided a detailed description of the duration measurement method, and none reported validity. Most studies used caregiver reports (29, 54%) or healthcare worker observations (17, 31%). Other methods included independent observers and electronic monitoring devices.
conclusionOnly 9% of KMC studies reporting duration documented the measurement method applied, and no studies were found with documented validation of duration measurement methods. Accurate and comparable data on the dose response of KMC will require duration measurement methods to be validated against a gold standard such as an independent observer.
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.