ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing newborn scoring with each resuscitation (ANSWER): Protocol for identifying and testing an Apgar score for the 21st century.
Article in PloS one, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe status of infants in the minutes after birth has been summarized by the Apgar score for the last 70 years and is applied at most medically attended deliveries around the world. It has not, however, adapted to changes in neonatal resuscitation over the decades. There are issues with application to premature newborns, how to account for the interventions outlined in the Newborn Resuscitation Program (NRP), inter-rater reliability, and local custom. Developing a modern newborn assessment score will require a series of steps, the first of which is to identify which observations or data can best differentiate a normal newborn transition from an abnormal one.
methodsVideo recordings of at least 35 random normal (meeting NRP goals for heart rate and saturation without intervention, normal physical exam and requiring only normal postnatal care) and 35 random abnormal (not meeting at least 2 normal criteria) from 7 centers participating in the VERIFI study. The presence or absence of observable elements, including vital signs, appearance, and interventions will be recorded every 30 seconds for the first 5 minutes of life. Observations, as well as any changes over time or after intervention will be compared between normal and abnormal, and those that are significant and independent based on logistic regression will become candidate newborn assessment score components. EXPECTED
resultsThere are likely to be ten or more observations/elements from videos of the first five minutes of life that will differ between normal and abnormal newborns, and these will be tested in all combinations to identify the 1-3 score sets that will be applied to a new set of VERIFI videos to identify which has the best sensitivity/specificity.
conclusionsBringing newborn assessment into modern practice will build on the legacy of Dr. Apgar. A series of steps, beginning with identifying the observations/elements that best identify newborns who may need further care can lead to a universal validated tool for the 21st century.
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.