ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2025
Inequities in prenatal neonatology consultation in high-mortality neonatal populations.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore inequities in prenatal consultation and parental resuscitation decisions across high-mortality conditions. STUDY
designWe conducted a retrospective chart review of pregnant people whose liveborn neonates were diagnosed with high-mortality conditions. We examined two cohorts: periviable infants (22 0/7-24 6/7 weeks) and infants with severe congenital anomalies.
resultsA total of 194 neonates met eligibility criteria for the periviable cohort, 197 for the congenital anomaly cohort. In the periviable cohort, 94% of White vs. 81% of Black pregnant people received neonatology consultation (p = 0.009). A total of 96% of those with commercial insurance vs. 82% of those with Medicaid received consultation (p = 0.005). Half of Hispanic pregnant people did not receive neonatology consultation (p = 0.02). In the congenital anomaly cohort, pregnant people who spoke a language other than English were less likely to receive consultation (44% vs. 81%, p = 0.02).
conclusionsThis regional assessment found previously unrecognized inequities in prenatal neonatology consultation.
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.