ArticlePediatric research2026
High-risk infant follow-up: current practice and factors determining eligibility.
Article in Pediatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Survival and Discharge: Improving High-Risk Follow-Up in NICU Graduates.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- High-risk infant follow-up: where are we and where to from here?Pediatric research · 2026Article
- The role of social determinants of health in the developing injured brain.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Extending the Branches of Neonatal Neurocritical Care.Seminars in perinatology · 2025Review
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
backgroundHigh-risk infant follow-up (HRIF) lacks universal definition. The aim of this study was to report current practice and factors used to identify eligibility for HRIF, yielding information which may provide a basis for future consensus.
methodsA survey was prepared for a workshop at the 15th International Newborn Brain Conference on prediction of outcome, which was subsequently distributed to all attendees (n = 426).
resultsFollow-up was offered by 97% of respondents (n = 113/116). HRIF was offered to infants born <28 weeks by 47%, to those <32 weeks by two-thirds (66%) and to preterms based on neuroimaging by 54%. For infants born full-term, HRIF was offered by 88% in neonatal encephalopathy (NE) and 86% in neonatal stroke. HRIF continued most frequently until 24 months corrected (33.6%). For guiding prognosis in preterm infants, 22% (n = 25) selected neuroimaging as the most important factor. For NE, 54% (n = 63) selected neuroimaging findings as the most important factor in guiding prognosis and 14% (n = 16) selected EEG/aEEG. Social factors are not considered by 46% in determining HRIF eligibility.
conclusionSignificant variability in HRIF exists, without consensus. Awareness of factors predicting prognosis and the importance of social risk-factors must improve to allow accurate identification of those at highest risk. This information may act as a basis for future consensus on HRIF. IMPACT: There is no clear consensus on eligibility or duration of high-risk infant follow-up. We report current practice in, and factors used to identify eligibility for same, amongst attendees of the International Newborn Brain Conference. This information on international practice may provide a basis for future consensus. Given the importance of accurate prognostication in risk-stratification, we report participants' awareness of the most important factors guiding prognosis. A disconnect between the impact of social factors on outcome and their consideration for eligibility of high-risk infant follow-up is noted. We propose the need for guidelines on follow-up of socially disadvantaged, medically high-risk infants.
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.