ArticleCureus2025
360° Camera Versus Two-View Standard Video Camera Capture of Neonatal Resuscitation: Optimizing Recording for Observation of Resuscitation Steps.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Fixed-camera video recordings of neonatal resuscitation have been utilized to facilitate post-event debriefing and evaluate guideline adherence. Traditional video capture is limited in the field of view it provides, requiring multiple cameras to capture the relevant steps of the resuscitation. Objective We sought to examine the feasibility of a 360° video camera (360V) (Gear 360, Samsung, Vietnam) compared to a traditional two-view standard video camera (SVC) (SimView Mobile Camera, Laerdal Medical, New York) as a method for recording neonatal resuscitation and capturing salient resuscitation factors. Methods This observational study recorded neonatal resuscitation events in a simulated delivery room. Each simulation was recorded by two methods: near- and far-view SVC and 360V. Two independent reviewers analyzed the videos for visibility of Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) steps, audibility, and recording quality of predefined resuscitation events and behaviors. Global visualization and audibility scores were analyzed using a five-point Likert scale. Results A total of 25 simulated neonatal resuscitation events were reviewed. The average global visualization of NRP steps was higher using 360V than with two-view SVC (4.26 vs. 3.33, P = 0.0001). Average global audibility using 360V was also higher than with two-view SVC (4.90 vs. 4.21, P < 0.0001). Motion sickness more often occurred while viewing 360V videos compared to two-view SVC videos (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). However, motion sickness was overall a rare occurrence. Conclusions Average global visualization and audibility were improved using 360V compared to two-view SVC. A 360V is a superior method for reviewing neonatal resuscitation simulations compared to two-view SVC. A limitation of the study is that the location of the SVC in the room may not reflect the ideal placement for capturing visual aspects of neonatal resuscitation. Placement of the camera on the warmer may have yielded different results. Further studies comparing various SVC placements to 360V are warranted.
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.