Observational studyBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Five-Minute Apgar Scores and Its Prognostic Value for Mortality and Severe Morbidity in Very Preterm Infants: A Multinational Cohort Study.
Observational study in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 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.
- Prediction of low 5-minute Apgar scores: development and internal validation of parity-stratified clinical prediction models for sub-Saharan Africa.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Intrapartum cardiotocographic patterns and perinatal outcomes in extremely preterm births: an exploratory retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Apgar Score Plus Umbilical Artery pH and Adverse Neonatal Outcomes in Very Preterm Infants.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Adding Early Postnatal Parameters of Ventilation to Prognostic Models for Pulmonary Outcome in Very Preterm Infants.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine associations between a 5-min Apgar score < 7 and severe neonatal outcomes in very preterm (VPT) infants and how results are impacted by variations in assigning Apgar scores within an international context.
designProspective observational population-based cohort study.
settingEleven structurally and organisationally diverse countries across Europe. POPULATION: In total, 7900 liveborn VPT infants from the EPICE-SHIPS study.
methodsDescriptive statistics, logistic regression, modified Poisson regression.
main outcome measuresAssociations between 5-min Apgar scores < 7 and adverse neonatal outcomes were estimated with adjustments for perinatal characteristics. We tested for interactions by country-level prevalence of an Apgar score < 7, grouped into low (14%-16%), medium (19%-22%) and high (28%-40%).
results20.2% of infants had 5-min Apgar score < 7 with rates of 14%-40% across countries. A score < 7 increased risks of in-hospital mortality, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), cystic periventricular leukomalacia (cPVL), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and length of hospital stay (LHS), but not necrotising enterocolitis or late-onset infection (LOI). No interactions with country group were detected for mortality, cPVL and ROP, while associations with IVH, BPD and LHS were restricted to countries with lower prevalence of scores < 7.
conclusionsSignificant differences exist in the prevalence of low Apgar scores across countries. Their interactions with adverse outcomes demand caution when using the Apgar score in prognostic models for clinical care and research without local validation. More broadly, our findings emphasise the importance of accounting for country-specific effects in clinical assessment scores.
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.