Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40443577›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2025

A structured comparison and reflection on international position statements and professional guidance for the management of periviable infants.

J Peterson, G Southwood, D M Smith, E D Johnstone, A Mahaveer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

J PetersonFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
G SouthwoodNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, St Mary's Maternity Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
D M SmithFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
E D JohnstoneFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
A MahaveerFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Survival rates and clinical approach to periviable infants are rapidly evolving at certain centres, but there remains variation in definition, approach and management of these infants worldwide. This review aims to narratively review and discuss professional guidelines, position statements and frameworks for management of periviable infants (22 + 0-25 + 0 weeks gestation) born in countries with the highest relative spending on healthcare. Methods: Eligible countries were determined using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development database. The top 10 countries with highest spend on healthcare as a proportion of their gross domestic profit were selected. A comprehensive search of relevant databases and search engines (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar) was performed to identify professional guidance documents for each eligible country. The primary outcome was the delivery room management recommendation (survival-focused or end of life care). The secondary outcomes were survival rates, disability rates and whether shared decision-making with parents was recommended. Results: There was variation in definition of periviable and approach to management across the 10 professional guidelines. There was a four-week difference across countries for where the limits of viability lie (22 + 0-25 + 6 weeks). At 22-weeks, eight guidelines recommended comfort care and only one country recommending active care as the default management position at birth. By 24-weeks gestation, no country recommended comfort care as the standard approach at birth. Discussion: Despite the included countries having the highest spend on healthcare as a proportion of their GDP, there is marked international variation in recommended practice in relation to the definition of and management for periviable infants. The majority of included guidelines recommended a shared decision-making approach between professionals and parents facing periviable birth, however, there were scant details about how this should be actualized and only two guidelines included decision-making aids for use with parents. The pre-birth discussion between perinatal professionals and parents facing periviable labour is complex and challenging for all involved. Further research is required to explore how best to facilitate parental understanding and involvement in these discussions to ensure parents are empowered to make the most appropriate decisions for their baby and their family.

Indexed as

birthextreme pretermneonatespalliative careperinatal

Identifiers

PMID40443577
PMCPMC12119558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.