ArticleTurkish archives of pediatrics2025
Comparative Assessment of the Critical Condition of Newborns with Congenital Anomalies on the Basis of Different Scales.
Article in Turkish archives of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Various assessment scales have been developed to evaluate the severity of critical conditions in patients admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), predicting the length of stay, likelihood of complications, and death. Congenital anomalies, though a significant portion of NICU admissions, are often excluded from such studies. The aim of our study was to compare the informativeness of different scoring systems in the assessment of critical patients with congenital anomalies treated in the NICU, as well as their applicability in predicting complications and fatal outcomes. Materials and Methods: Between 2019 and 2022, we evaluated the severity of the critical condition of 921 newborns diagnosed with congenital anomalies at the Scientific Research Pediatric Institute named after K. Farajova using the National therapeutic intervention evaluation system (NTISS), scores for neonatal acute physiology (SNAPPE II), clinical risk index for babies (CRIB), and the mortality index for neonatal transportation score (MINT) scales. Results: Of the 921 neonates with congenital anomalies admitted to the NICU in critical condition, 271 (29.4%) were preterm (≤37 weeks) and 650 (70.6%) were term. In 921 patients diagnosed with congenital anomalies, the mean NTISS score according to the scales was 18.6; SNAPPE II 14.2; CRIB 4.6; MINT 6.9. In these patients, when the mean score of preterm and term births was compared according to gestational week, the SNAPPE II and MINT points were statistically significantly higher in preterm babies than terms. In the comparative analysis between the patients of the surviving and lethal groups, it was found that all the scales (SNAPPE II, NTISS, CRIB, MINT) were statistically significant. Conclusion: National therapeutic intervention evaluation system, SNAPPE II, CRIB, and MINT scales are useful in predicting mortality in newborns with congenital anomalies. However, these scales do not account for the severity of the congenital anomalies, system damage relationships, complication effects, or treatment needs (need for surgical intervention). Tailored scale usage corresponding to medical service levels in different countries would improve affordability and predictability.
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.