ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025
Risk factors for neonatal mortality: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. 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.
- Causes of death across the life course in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023.The Lancet. Public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Suboptimal screening and correction of maternal iron deficiency anaemia in the general population and in inherited bleeding disorders: A population-based cohort study.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Umbrella Reviews: Concepts, Methodological Frameworks, and Step-by-Step Implementation.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neonatal mortality (NM) remains a persistent global public health challenge, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of its associated risk factors to guide effective interventions. Despite multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses varying in quality, scope, and conclusions, an umbrella review synthesising this evidence was lacking. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review using six major databases: Embase, Medline, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus, along with regional databases, systematic review repositories, and grey literature sources. Eligible studies were systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 1990 to 22 July 2025 reporting associations between risk factors and all-cause NM based on at least two primary studies. The quality of the reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2). Evidence on risk factors was summarised and graded. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023455542). Findings: Of 10,610 retrieved records, 64 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included, five of which were systematic reviews without meta-analyses. We identified 54 unique risk factors across 73 outcome-exposure associations. Interpretation: This umbrella review identified Funding: None.
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.